Comparison tests Porsche 918 vs McLaren P1 vs LaFerrari


Many people were completely shocked with the 918 beating the p1 on this test. Suddenly its like the 918 is the king and the p1 was a flop, that seems to me the result of a very poor analysis.

First I'll expose some facts:

-Apparently in acceleration the 918 keeps well with the p1 up to 270kph (170 mph) or so...
-The 918 is heavier but has awd which will benefit it on slower circuits with tight corners...
-This evo test circuit was in deed very small an slow.
-Michelin sport cup 2 are certainly a bit more grippy than the pzero corsa.
-The times of the evo test, when the p1 was wearing pzero corsas, are very similar, their difference hasn't much meaning.

Having all these into consideration this performance test circumstances were quite favorable for the 918, there's no way the result of the p1 was a big letdown.

These cars aren't made for tiny tracks, they should be put on a decent size circuit.

Put them on a dry f1 circuit and i suspect the 918 will struggle to be anywhere near the p1.

i disagree

the autocar dry circuit (MIRA test center) is a very flat and fast circuit where downforce would play a role in the laptime, the 918 was 1,1 seconds faster than the P1

we can also take the nürburgring into account, how do we know they beat the 918 if they didn't publish a laptime? we don't, and some info i've gotten from a user on Fchat: the front electric engine on the record car cut out at 200kph, the normal one it goes all the way to 265kph

the MPSC2 maybe stickier than the trofeo, but they're definatly not as sticky as the P1 supporters will have you believe (refrence: jethros twitter)
 
Car testers/enthusiasts - must know a little I guess. The reason why I suggest this is the maximum downforce is because manufacturers tend to quote the maximum simply because it sounds the most impressive. In confined aerodynamics such as the LaFerrari the boundary layer will also tend to slow the air down at higher speeds unless proper ground effect aerodynamics is used to counter that effect, which is not possible on road cars due to ride height. A smaller dynamic head means increased static pressure (and drag) and reduced downforce.
Sorry I don' quite understand your post...what do you mean by "confined aerodynamics"? The boundary layer is always slower than the air flow further away from the smooth surface of any object.....including the bottom of a car. I do not know what your interpretation of ground effect aerodynamic is, the sides of the car aren't sealed and the height between the road and the bottom of the car is constantly changing, but it still effective because the P1, LaFerrari and the 918 has front and rear diffusers to generate down force, but how much down force? We can't know for sure That is why I don't trust the official down force figures because there are simply too many unknowns. People make such a big deal about that quoted 600kg max down force of the P1 but that is the theoretical maximum under perfect conditions, and some less informed journalists expected to experience that level of down force no matter what the car is doing. That is why I ask, what do the guys at MT know about aerodynamics. Just because a car as a giant wing and the back and aggressive looking rear diffuser it doesn't mean it can generate more down force. Look at the F1 cars for example, they all look similar, they were all designed under the same set of regulations, how do one car have more down force than others?
 
When the downforce values for laferrari and p1 came out, i did some rough calculations to compare both cars downforces at same the same speed, while taking into consideration their weights(which kills downforce benefits), and theoretically the p1 had like 5% to 10% more downforce. This was just an exercise out of curiosity, of course with their active aerodynamics these numbers lose even more significance.
Just because the p1 has a big wing doesn't mean that its aerodynamics are in a whole different level.
The weight of the car doesn't have any relation to its aerodynamic performance, I am curious to know the method you use for your calculation?
 
Downforce divided by weight is what counts.

More precisely the achievable g force or acceleration expressed in g at a given speed is

friction * ( (Weight+downforce) / weight )
 
Why would you assume that the maximum downforce at la ferrari is hit at 200Km/h? That seems like pure prejudice towards ferrari.

If they wanted to keep the max dowforce at that value they could through active aerodynamics but that requires work and would be an engineering achievement in the same way that (if i remember correctly) the p1 keeps its max at 600kg.

There is more than one reason for ferrari to quote its downforce at 200km/h, first its absolute value might be less than the p1's, secondly a considerable value of downforce is much more impressive if the speed is lower, because the car will benefit from it at much more curves. The enzo had a maximum downforce of 775kg at 300km/h but despite that max value the p1 and laferrari have easily more downforce at lower speeds.

When the downforce values for laferrari and p1 came out, i did some rough calculations to compare both cars downforces at same the same speed, while taking into consideration their weights(which kills downforce benefits), and theoretically the p1 had like 5% to 10% more downforce. This was just an exercise out of curiosity, of course with their active aerodynamics these numbers lose even more significance.

Just because the p1 has a big wing doesn't mean that its aerodynamics are in a whole different level.
It's simply a judgement about how cars are marketed. You don't quote intermediate downforce, you quote maximum downforce.

The Enzo's 775kg of downforce was gross not net, so it's apples to oranges as regards this discussion.

To answer the point about the wing and hopefully answer Monster too. When boundary layers build up in confined spaces at higher speeds, they slow down the air reducing the downforce. However race cars use the dragging effect of the ground moving by at high speed to cause a Couette flow effect and increase the speed. This is only effective at low ride heights. Of course the underbody venturis will still have a downforce affect though.
 
The weight of the car doesn't have any relation to its aerodynamic performance, I am curious to know the method you use for your calculation?

As F355 kindly answered:

Downforce divided by weight is what counts.

More precisely the achievable g force or acceleration expressed in g at a given speed is

friction * ( (Weight+downforce) / weight )
 
The weight of the car doesn't have any relation to its aerodynamic performance, I am curious to know the method you use for your calculation?
Basically the problem encountered during cornering is producing the force to sustain the centripetal acceleration force:

mv^2/r where m = mass, v = velocity and r = radius of turn. For a lighter car, this force is proportionally lower.

Friction = CoF x Normal reactive force (Fn)

Hence CoF x Fn = mv^2/r [1]

Where there is no banking Fn = mg with zero downforce.

Where this is downforce Fn = mg + downforce (Df). Or (m + downforce)g if downforce is somewhat incorrectly given in kg (mass unit not force).

If mg is relatively small, it can be seen that for a given kgf of downforce the percentage increase in Fn is larger, hence the percentage increase in v in [1] is larger. Hence why 600kg F1 cars major in high speed cornering.

Substituting and re-arranging [1] gives:

CoF x [mg + Df] = mv^2/r = CoF.mg + CoF.Df

--> CoF.Df = mg[v^2/gr - CoF]

so [CoF.Df.r/m + CoF.r.g]^0.5 = v (max. cornering speed) = {CoF.r [Df/m + g]}^0.5

So we see cornering speed is proportional to the sqrt of bend radius and CoF and also the sum of the downforce to mass ratio and gravity (a constant on Earth).

If we state Df in kg then.

v (max. cornering speed) = {CoF.r [Dfg/m + g]}^0.5 = {CoF.r [g(Df+m)/m]}^0.5

From [(Df+m)/m]^0.5 we see that downforce equal to 44% of m gives a 20% increase in v for a given corner on a given suspension and tyre setup relative to zero downforce. This is roughly the case with a P1 at 160mph. Stated another way, at maximum downforce setting a 133mph corner (at zero downforce) becomes a 160mph corner.

Using Df = 1/2.Cd.A.density.v^2 we see that a 111mph corner becomes a 124mph corner too, for both the P1 and LaFerrari.
 
i disagree

the autocar dry circuit (MIRA test center) is a very flat and fast circuit where downforce would play a role in the laptime, the 918 was 1,1 seconds faster than the P1
Yes but it was a different day test and there was reference to dampness during the P1 test making the times non-comparable.
 
i disagree

the autocar dry circuit (MIRA test center) is a very flat and fast circuit where downforce would play a role in the laptime, the 918 was 1,1 seconds faster than the P1

we can also take the nürburgring into account, how do we know they beat the 918 if they didn't publish a laptime? we don't, and some info i've gotten from a user on Fchat: the front electric engine on the record car cut out at 200kph, the normal one it goes all the way to 265kph

the MPSC2 maybe stickier than the trofeo, but they're definatly not as sticky as the P1 supporters will have you believe (refrence: jethros twitter)


Well i have to admit that on the autocar's dry test the p1 didn't look so good, but their test circuit is still very small and in no way comparable to a circuit of the f1 calendar. Its a handling circuit, and looking to it's map I'm not sure that downforce has much interest on it. And of course being so small, the range of used speeds to lap it, will be very much in the range of speeds in which the 918 accelerates as fast as the p1.

For me so far the biggest shock was how the 918 being more heavy and less powerful can keep up on acceleration with the p1, perhaps the p1 has too much drag... I'd imagine that after 200km/h the p1 would vigorously pull away, but for my surprise that isn't the case.

As for the nordschleife times as interesting and cool as they are, to me they don't seem extremely relevant for this cars performance on a typical or f1 track.

I don't have much reason to doubt of mclaren, the sub 7 minute time seems believable, they didn't release a video but porsche and many others have done exactly that. Whats their motive for not releasing the exact time?
Could be that 918 is faster, but still 6:57 or 6:59.99 doesn't mean much, they could be protecting themselves from ferrari, or simply from a general mad obsession about ring times as if this cars were simply built to be as fast as possible on this track.

A little more on the ring, this track is incredibly power dependent on underpowered cars(for instance 100-200hp), but as power rises that becomes less and less true, this circuit has lots of inclinations, jumps, and awd, stability and traction are a big factor on this track, also there are like 2 places where these hyper cars will hit 300km/h, what in 20km course isn't that much. So once again, to me is no scandal that the 918 does very good there.
 
Well i have to admit that on the autocar's dry test the p1 didn't look so good, but their test circuit is still very small and in no way comparable to a circuit of the f1 calendar. Its a handling circuit, and looking to it's map I'm not sure that downforce has much interest on it. And of course being so small, the range of used speeds to lap it, will be very much in the range of speeds in which the 918 accelerates as fast as the p1.

For me so far the biggest shock was how the 918 being more heavy and less powerful can keep up on acceleration with the p1, perhaps the p1 has too much drag... I'd imagine that after 200km/h the p1 would vigorously pull away, but for my surprise that isn't the case.

As for the nordschleife times as interesting and cool as they are, to me they don't seem extremely relevant for this cars performance on a typical or f1 track.

I don't have much reason to doubt of mclaren, the sub 7 minute time seems believable, they didn't release a video but porsche and many others have done exactly that. Whats their motive for not releasing the exact time?
Could be that 918 is faster, but still 6:57 or 6:59.99 doesn't mean much, they could be protecting themselves from ferrari, or simply from a general mad obsession about ring times as if this cars were simply built to be as fast as possible on this track.

A little more on the ring, this track is incredibly power dependent on underpowered cars(for instance 100-200hp), but as power rises that becomes less and less true, this circuit has lots of inclinations, jumps, and awd, stability and traction are a big factor on this track, also there are like 2 places where these hyper cars will hit 300km/h, what in 20km course isn't that much. So once again, to me is no scandal that the 918 does very good there.

the last part of your comment is completely right, the nurburgring doesn't favour high powere cars, just look at the LFA NE it has less hp/tonne than the one behind it (donkoovert D8) yet it's still faster, the nürburgring is ALL about PACE
 
Yes but it was a different day test and there was reference to dampness during the P1 test making the times non-comparable.

mclaren deemed the track dry enough to set a laptime saying that the damp spots wouldn't effect the time (heard on Fchat but would like some scans/link to confirm this)
 
mclaren deemed the track dry enough to set a laptime saying that the damp spots wouldn't effect the time (heard on Fchat but would like some scans/link to confirm this)
Even if the damp spots aren't on the corners, wetting the wheels still won't do cornering any good and the condition of the dry parts probably wouldn't have been great given lingering moisture.

What's also interesting is that the P1 beat the 918 on the wet handling track despite not being AWD, which again speaks volumes about the whole MPSC2 vs PZCS debate.
 
Dear Emu,
even Jethro himself said several times completely clear - 918 IS FASTER. If you want to argue with the person who held the EVO test, then good luck. :)
Is it so boring on ML Life, that you moved this typical "probably", "if", "in case of" debates here?

One last thing - nobody is guilty (except McLaren) that they developed P1 with Corsa tyres. On a more than million dollar halo car, they could have invested several dollars more for 375 sets of Michelins.
This exact fact speaks enough for their development efforts.
 
It's simply a judgement about how cars are marketed. You don't quote intermediate downforce, you quote maximum downforce.

The Enzo's 775kg of downforce was gross not net, so it's apples to oranges as regards this discussion.

To answer the point about the wing and hopefully answer Monster too. When boundary layers build up in confined spaces at higher speeds, they slow down the air reducing the downforce. However race cars use the dragging effect of the ground moving by at high speed to cause a Couette flow effect and increase the speed. This is only effective at low ride heights. Of course the underbody venturis will still have a downforce affect though.

Are you sure about the downforce of the enzo being just gross and the p1's and laferrari's being net?

Because i never saw that stated anywhere.

As i already said and justified it's to me highly unlikely that the laferari's max dowforce is achieved at 200km/h.
 
Yes but it was a different day test and there was reference to dampness during the P1 test making the times non-comparable.

Didn't know that. I guess it makes sense, given the 1.1s difference between the p1 and the 918.
 
Dear Emu,
even Jethro himself said several times completely clear - 918 IS FASTER. If you want to argue with the person who held the EVO test, then good luck. :)
Is it so boring on ML Life, that you moved this typical "probably", "if", "in case of" debates here?

One last thing - nobody is guilty (except McLaren) that they developed P1 with Corsa tyres. On a more than million dollar halo car, they could have invested several dollars more for 375 sets of Michelins.
This exact fact speaks enough for their development efforts.


On his video i don't remember him saying that the 918 was faster, besides their times were identical and the circuit wasn't particularly favorable to the p1...

About the tires busyness is busyness, besides the michelins will still fit on the car, and of course after all you have the trofeo tires to push the p1 even further...
 
Are you sure about the downforce of the enzo being just gross and the p1's and laferrari's being net?

Because i never saw that stated anywhere.

As i already said and justified it's to me highly unlikely that the laferari's max dowforce is achieved at 200km/h.
It probably was never stated anywhere but the general philosophy is to maximise downforce figures. So whilst the Enzo did generate 775kg of downforce, a lot of that was spent overcoming high speed lift rather than producing net downforce. Obviously today's cars are producing more downforce simply because of scientific progression.

LaFerrari would again likely quote maximum downforce simply for media value, so the figure at 200kph is likely the maximum unless there is good evidence to the contrary.
 
Dear Emu,
even Jethro himself said several times completely clear - 918 IS FASTER. If you want to argue with the person who held the EVO test, then good luck. :)
Is it so boring on ML Life, that you moved this typical "probably", "if", "in case of" debates here?

One last thing - nobody is guilty (except McLaren) that they developed P1 with Corsa tyres. On a more than million dollar halo car, they could have invested several dollars more for 375 sets of Michelins.
This exact fact speaks enough for their development efforts.
The issue here is than PZCSs work in the wet whereas MPSC2s don't (see Autocar wet handling). McLaren also have F1 obligations towards Pirelli. Bovingdon's views are distorted by the fact that the P1 is so much lighter and has so much more downforce that it can post similar times on inferior dry weather tyres.
 

Trending content


Back
Top