- Messages
- 14,878
- Name
- Derek
That particular Enzo suffered from malfunction rear dampers in the last 1/4 of the track.
Comparison tests Porsche 918 vs McLaren P1 vs LaFerrari
- Thread starter hoffmeister_fan
- Start date
Comparisons between vehicles, features, performance, pricing, ownership, and real-world differences.
Okay but in 1976 the pole was 7:06.5 and it takes <5s to cover 200m from a 60+mph rolling start under WOT, so the 918 was ~4s slower on road legal tyres (relative to Lauda's 1975 pole) with a minimalist aero package and a kerb weight of 1,642kg (Sport Auto). The P1 GTR will be on racing slicks, which I think are also wider than the road car's set, it also has a huge weight reduction, wider track, massive aero increase and a 10% power hike. I think it's reasonable to believe a 30-40s time advantage over a Trofeo R equipped road P1 is possible. The 956 time is 31 years old, the only real question is whether there's a driver up to the task.
How do they know it had a technical failure? Maybe the dampers just aren't well setup for the 'ring.
You can't allow non-standard body parts for production car lap records. That's just a definitive given by the description. If there was some mild inconsistency inside the car, like a missing cigarette lighter that might be different, but the body parts are a fundamental part of the car that affect weight, CoG and form. If another car beat the 918 with a non-standard roof and doors, people would soon complain and then what, roof, door, hood.... next wheels... It's a can of worms and that alone is why it's due an asterisk.
For some one who spends so much time discussing tires, that was a surprisingly invalid answer.
Are you pretending you didn't notice the inferior tires in the enzo? Even so it was just a few tenths behind the zonda on the 20km ring, or it doesn't matter because it was a ferrari?
The viper also was run on more track focused tires (if i remember correctly they were the terrible michelin pilot sport cup, that, judging by your last 100 posts, you might've heard of).
Are you also ignoring that the enzo performed very well against its era supercar rivals? Which seems more relevant than comparing it to much more recent sports cars...
And before you get back to me on the dimples issue. You're going to start talking about Reynolds Number right? Don't teach Granny to suck eggs. Yes Reynolds Number determines whether laminar or turbulent flow is better for an entity as a whole and if these strips were on the front and sides of the vehicles around panels gaps I'd agree. But even if laminar flow is better for the entity as a whole that doesn't mean that the rear can't benefit from reduced separation by inducing a bit of turbulence.
Basically I note several things wrt these strips:
1) Given that the edited video clip doesn't show the timed lap, why wouldn't they simply remove the strips and do the video without them?
2) It would be a really dumb cheat. Given that it's a turbocharged car, the easier, less observable and more effective cheat is race gas and/or nudging up boost a few psi.
3) The strips don't even cover the gaps fully.
4) They're in the least effective position for having the claimed effect.
5) Given that the P1 beats a 918 by a few tenths in a mile despite finishing >10mph faster, how many microseconds do you reckon these strips would pick up over that mile and how many mile long straights are on the 'ring where a 900hp car might be able to pick up these microseconds?
6) If the gaps were a real problem, they wouldn't be there in the first place.
7) The gaps there on this prototype look hideous compared to production models.
8) Take a look at the back of a P1, there are bigger airflow disturbances than that gap, much bigger.
I don't know what tyres the Enzo and Zonda were using. As I recall it was beaten on Bedford Autodrome by a mildly modified McLaren F1.
We got on to this discussion because people questioned why McLaren don't release a 'ring video. Has Ferrari released one for the LaFerrari? Did Porsche release one for the GT2 RS? Whilst videos later emerged for the Enzo and Carrera GT, Ferrari and Porsche didn't release them.
At the end of the day Nordschleife laps are best left to independent testers because it's too easy for manufacturers to cheat and people will always accuse them of it anyway. And if they don't cheat, others will, so it's never a level playing field. That's probably why some manufacturers refuse to give times, it's just a cue for a shit-flinging competition that nobody can be arsed with.
So you don't know, but you didn't hesitate on jumping to conclusions...
A less elaborated test, with modified cars, without fresh tires for every car, on a tiny track and with no Marc Basseng is suddenly more relevant to you.
I don't wanna imply that evo test doesn't have its value, but your memory seems very selective, just like the way you look at things seems biased.
About manufacturers giving away lap times for tracks, I've nothing against it, i wouldn't buy a car based on claimed lap time, and i also think no car would be consdered king of performance based on a single manufacture claimed time.
I personally don't find suspicious the sub 7 minute lap claim for the p1.
Perhaps it wasn't as fast as the 918 but by 2 or 3 seconds it surely isn't a debacle. But i think it really could be faster, i wouldn't find weird mclaren not reveling the time.
FYI, I am told The ring 918 car( s)actually weigh a few kgs more than the standard car, due to all the tech equipment for recording the data, whist the roof was fixed for safety reasons, it again weighs more then the standard roof...
Mcl imv do not have a stand alone ring time faster than the 918, if they did they would be out with it. Simples,? I am told that they do have some very fast sector times though. The only time that I know of is 7.04......
Mcl imv do not have a stand alone ring time faster than the 918, if they did they would be out with it. Simples,? I am told that they do have some very fast sector times though. The only time that I know of is 7.04......
His mate now at Marketing at Mac used to work with him at AC.....Don't believe a word he says......
Body panels are an essential part of a car's form, you can't go changing them for a production car lap record, otherwise everyone would be at it.
Well certainly, everyone was quick to jump all over the Anglesey test on an even shorter track with a numpty driving who tweets that PZCSs are 'comparable' to MPSC2s.
Biased how? I honestly don't care what time a 10 year old car made, the only reason I raised it was to point out that Ferrari, and historically Porsche too, don't release 'ring lap times and videos either.
Nor should anyone find it suspicious. It's pretty much standard for elite hypercar and supercar manufacturers not to engage in that bullshit. Any manufacturer lap videos for Ferrari, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Koenigsegg or Pagani? Nope. Porsche made an exception this time round because presumably they wanted to be the first to break 7 minutes but in all honesty the record, as with most others, is unofficial, because no official bodies verified the car was standard, and an official body like Guinness wouldn't allow non-standard body parts anyway. It's a nice video but sadly it doesn't officially count for anything.
Is your problem with reading or with maths? The ring used by the F1 cars in the 70s was 22.8km not 20.6km or 20.8km like it is now. Hence the difference in length is 2.2km not 200m. And not even the mighty 918 can cover 2.2km in 5s!
May be take a bit more time to read and understand posts before you reply in future.
There is no way the GTR is sniffing 6.20 let alone 6.11. Not convinced McLaren will even try for a ring time after the P1 debacle.
EMU/Mycroft is just trolling as usual. The 6.57 is definitely one of the more legit ring times and if what you say is true about subsequent motor optimisation the customer cars will probably be quicker still (time was lost on the second long straight).
I initially thought McLaren might not have released a time because they thought Ferrari would go after it. The fact that nothing has come out over a year later suggests that in fact there is no time. IF the P1 loses in next months Top Gear and yet McLaren have actual proof of of a sub 7 minute lap it would be ludicrous for them not to release it.
Pretty sure 7.04 is a Bridge to Gantry time which is only 19.1km and far shorter than the 20.6km that the 918 did in 6.57.
Lol, the reason why Ferrari et al don't release ring times is because they go there for testing purposes only. They don't take helicopters and the world's media along and then claim to have gone under 7 minutes without giving any proof. I haven't seen any official videos from Ferrari proclaiming how awesome the Laferrari is at the ring, have you?
In life you either put up or shut up. Porsche have put up and the rest have shut up. Except McLaren who are trying to talk but have nothing to put up!
Okay didn't realise the extra 2 for F1 cars. So where's the change? GP track included?
The 956 record is on the 20.8km track though.
How do you know a P1 GTR won't run 6:2X. They may not run a lap but the time seems reasonable given the road car runs sub-7 minutes on road tyres.
I'd say they have a lot to put up. They annihilated another sub-7 minute car at Anglesey by well over a second. So unless the 918's time was set by a very non-standard car then clearly the P1 is capable.
McLaren only went there for testing purposes too. The sub-7 minute mark was a benchmark they wanted to achieve during that testing and they did.
Does this video seem similar to any other videos?
But then they found out the P1 was aiming sub-7 and they came back with a dodgy roof and you criticise McLaren for a similar video.
"The only reason Ferrari don't release....."
Based on Ferrari's official method for quoting kerb weight, the P1 went round sub-6 minutes.
kingjr9000
Das Beste Enthusiast
- Messages
- 1,763
Apolo1, you're back! We needed an extra 918 informant.
Based on what? Your opinion? I seem to recall Rohrl's time in the 918 was only 7:14 until they hired a pro-GT racing champion and came back with a different car and magically cut 17 seconds.
Similar threads
