P1 vs LaFerrari vs 918 Timed Around Silverstone

[lancia delta hf]

Suspiciously close times... there's some chat on the interweb that it's not all cosher.

Chris Harris has a 'coming soon' video on his YT channel for the same 3 car test... that should be a good one

Edit;

I think the CH test has full manufacturer support. So Porsche will drop their well used demonstrator off and ask for a quick 'phone call when it's ready to be picked up. McLaren will send a truck, a 10 man support team and 10 sets of tyres. Ferrari will do a week of testing at the venue, before turning up with 2 trucks, a 50 man support team, 100 sets of tyres and a LaF with a secret 2nd engine fitted to it

lolol this is why this test is a joke, Not so much this test but crying out for this test to be done for the last year+. If one car is 0.1 faster everyone (well most sensless people) will proclaim that car to be the best.

 

[McLaren]

Waiting for Ferrari FXXK vs. P1 GTR at Spa.
They should race these cars for real not only for lame youtube shows.

You'll never see it. The XX Programme cars are never run with anything but other Ferrari cars. The FXXK cars have Formula 1 data in their modules, so Ferrari will not let anyone besides the owners & support crews touch them. That's why they're test beds, not intent for full on racing.

 

[RACECAR]

Waiting for Ferrari FXXK vs. P1 GTR at Spa.
They should race these cars for real not only for lame youtube shows.

In addition to @McLaren 's point with the Ferrari FXXK, the McLaren P1 GTR does not meet any regulations and its essentially in the same sorta of company as the Pagani Zonda Revolution.

 

[lancia delta hf]

BTW this test really is useless. The P1 had pzero trofeos on, the lafa had corsas on. If you're gonna do something do it right. Trofeos are track orientated and come as a track option on the P1 so the test in inaccurate.

The 918 had Cup2s on which are about 0.5 faster than corsas but Slower than trofeos, they are michelins stickiest road legal tire and desiged for the track. I believe they come as standard on the 918 though.

Cris Harris tried the Trofeos and corsas on a porsche and got 2 seconds a lap faster on the trofeos




im sure you've seen how the P1 beat the 918 before after McLarensent it back on the stickier track tires to regain revenge on the porshe. Porsche were not offered another crack though.



and to confirm this test confirms nothing, this quote is from the owner of the 918 in the test.

all 3 cars checked over 3 days prior to the test.....along with 2 of the respective makers provided info on the day on how to best to optimise the cars for the test.....ie wing settings, LC , power modes etc

So can we assume that one of the "respective makers" was not Ferrari as they dont allow these tests? This test has created a lot of excitement and anticipation and they couldnt even be bother to ensure we get the right numbers. Lets put one of the cars on slicks next time just because.

 

[HKS racer]

In addition to @McLaren 's point with the Ferrari FXXK, the McLaren P1 GTR does not meet any regulations and its essentially in the same sorta of company as the Pagani Zonda Revolution.

Which is why a "Hypercar GT1" class or sort of would be cool.
"Stock" hypercars on slick tires.

Cris Harris? Quit youtube channel and just race against other professional drivers, then we'll see what he's really about.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

It's amazing how much bias I'm seeing from almost everyone in this thread. It made me realise that I'm the same. We've all picked one which for one reason or another we think will be the fastest. The three cars are so close that the overall test conditions are much more important than the cars themselves, so there are numerous ways that everyone can rationalise the close results to allow their favourite a clear victory.

Let's face it, these cars are seriously fast. If you owned one you wouldn't care which is fastest around a track because you couldn't do that time anyway. You'd care about how it made you feel when you drove it (or not, if that's your thing).

 

[Exorcet]

Let's face it, these cars are seriously fast. If you owned one you wouldn't care which is fastest around a track because you couldn't do that time anyway. You'd care about how it made you feel when you drove it (or not, if that's your thing).

In general even if you couldn't hit record times, I'd imagine relative performance differences would show up at less than elite level drivers. There's also nothing to say that you couldn't get quite good at driving if you put in some serious effort. However as you say, these cars are very close. They also aren't race cars so the speed ranking between them may not be terribly important, although ironically being very close in performance would make for a good race series from a driver's point of view.

I still like McLaren's philosophy the most, even if their execution might not be as good as it could have been.

 

[Stotty]

Cris Harris? Quit youtube channel and just race against other professional drivers, then we'll see what he's really about.

Chris has plenty of racing under his belt - eg; multiple Goodwood Festival of Speeds (where owners trust him to partner professional drivers in multi-million pound classics), 2 wins at Le Mans Classic & multiple Nurburgring 24H in factory cars.

He might not be a top flight racing driver, but he's very quick AND he has the ability to write (and produce quality videos).

 

[05XR8]

Well, there's La Ferrari in Hungary that won't get to lap Silverstone any time soon.

 

[HKS racer]

Chris has plenty of racing under his belt - eg; multiple Goodwood Festival of Speeds (where owners trust him to partner professional drivers in multi-million pound classics), 2 wins at Le Mans Classic & multiple Nurburgring 24H in factory cars.

He might not be a top flight racing driver, but he's very quick AND he has the ability to write (and produce quality videos).

AND he is not automatically a guarantee that everything he post is 100% true, he could be showing better results for this or that car company. You know youtube channel + marketing = money. How can you be 100% sure he's posting genuine results?

Not even F1 racing with all those regulations can guarantee 100% that every car is ok with the rules all the time.

 

[niky]

AND he is not automatically a guarantee that everything he post is 100% true, he could be showing better results for this or that car company. You know youtube channel + marketing = money. How can you be 100% sure he's posting genuine results?

What reason would he have to be a shill?

He's a self-confessed Porsche fanatic, and a multiple Porsche owner, but he's given wins to other cars over Porsches over the years.

In the end, his credibility hinges upon him doing believable videos and articles. The moment he stops doing so, he loses his audience.

Sure, you can question his ability at the wheel... as you can any competitive racing driver... but the reason he's popular isn't because he's the fastest guy out there. It's because he's a pretty good driver who knows how to write and present. That's a rarer combination than most people realize.

 

[HKS racer]

What reason would he have to be a shill?

He's a self-confessed Porsche fanatic, and a multiple Porsche owner, but he's given wins to other cars over Porsches over the years.

In the end, his credibility hinges upon him doing believable videos and articles. The moment he stops doing so, he loses his audience.

Sure, you can question his ability at the wheel... as you can any competitive racing driver... but the reason he's popular isn't because he's the fastest guy out there. It's because he's a pretty good driver who knows how to write and present. That's a rarer combination than most people realize.

But in the end it's just a show, not sanctioned racing with official timing and results. That's my point. People takes these youtube comparisons a bit too serious. No one can guarantee us he or everyone else will push all the cars at the limits or use same tires similar setups etc. We can just believe his honesty.
That's why we should consider all these videos for what they are, without thinking everything we see is "The Bibble".

 

[niky]

But in the end it's just a show, not sanctioned racing with official timing and results. That's my point. People takes these youtube comparisons a bit too serious. No one can guarantee us he or everyone else will push all the cars at the limits or use same tires similar setups etc. We can just believe his honesty.
That's why we should consider all these videos for what they are, without thinking everything we see is "The Bibble".

As you have said, not even F1 can guarantee that all the cars are on equal footing. So "sanctioned racing" would be quite meaningless. And even then, all a rule set would do is ensure that cars that are naturally more powerful or which come with grippier tires are unfairly handicapped. (See: Every fanboy argument against the Nissan GT-R... ever.)

I take the videos as entertainment. Nothing more. And I'm not particularly bothered if a car that's supposedly incredibly fast isn't. I've done hundreds of tests, and believe me, in the real world, without staging burnouts, suspension jiggering or track prep, nobody is coming close to ideal acceleration times or slalom speeds, anyway. Especially not in a world where a difference in temperature and prep can affect not only tires, but ICE and hybrid function (just ask me how long it takes to recharge a hybrid battery to achieve best acceleration times... ), as well. And no two track tests will yield the same times, and sometimes not even the same finishing order.

But to suggest that's because certain people are sandbagging requires proof of consistent, deliberate bias on the part of those people. And that proof is...?

EDIT: Besides, at the end of any video, you can always simply state: "I prefer this one, as it's much more fun, even if it's slower."

Which is pretty much any supercar - GTR comparison. Ever.

 

[McLaren]

@niky, you're speaking to someone who doesn't like Chris Harris because he wrote an article about how Ferrari doesn't approach reviews with 100% honesty.

he could be showing better results for this or that car company

Which makes this statement ironic that Chris could purposely favoring results, the same thing his beloved Ferrari did throughout the 90's by lending out factory cars & threatening owners if they lent theirs.

Which is why a "Hypercar GT1" class or sort of would be cool.
"Stock" hypercars on slick tires.

Of which would make absolutely no difference. Ferrari will never allow the XX Programme cars against other manufacturers until the cars are way beyond their time.

 

[HKS racer]

As you have said, not even F1 can guarantee that all the cars are on equal footing. So "sanctioned racing" would be quite meaningless. And even then, all a rule set would do is ensure that cars that are naturally more powerful or which come with grippier tires are unfairly handicapped. (See: Every fanboy argument against the Nissan GT-R... ever.)

But (at least for now) F1 is somehow supposed to be more important of a random guy on youtube. Who are the Stewards in Chris Harris videos? His cat? His wife? You know.

I take the videos as entertainment. Nothing more.

End of thread.

But to suggest that's because certain people are sandbagging requires proof of consistent, deliberate bias on the part of those people. And that proof is...?

Is Chris Harris that need to be part of sort of organization somehow recognized by the FIA in order to give official results to his tests. You can't really demand people to trust a random guy on youtube, no matter what he post even if his results are 100% true. It's like doing surgery (and eventually be good at it) without actually being a surgeon. You can't pretend people to take you serious.

 

[niky]

But (at least for now) F1 is somehow supposed to be more important of a random guy on youtube. Who are the Stewards in Chris Harris videos? His cat? His wife? You know.

I really don't get what you want... you want a relatively harmless, fun little car comparison on YouTube to be treated like a Formula One race?

In other words, some people are allowed to cheat, others aren't and the stewards change the rules every other race or sometimes try to apply new ones retroactively?

End of thread.

Just because I don't take lap times seriously doesn't mean I agree with you regarding any imagined bias from the makers of these videos.

Is Chris Harris that need to be part of sort of organization somehow recognized by the FIA in order to give official results to his tests. You can't really demand people to trust a random guy on youtube, no matter what he post even if his results are 100% true. It's like doing surgery (and eventually be good at it) without actually being a surgeon. You can't pretend people to take you serious.

Your surgeon analogy is strange, because Harris is a licensed racing driver, with experience in open wheelers and in endurance racing. Technically... he is a surgeon. His timed laps are thus no more or less authoritative than those done by any other licensed racing driver.

Furthermore, the FIA doesn't certify lap records set outside FIA sanctioned racing series. Whether you're Chris Harris, McLaren or Scuderia Ferrari, running a car on a race track outside of an actual race doesn't confer you any "official" FIA record.

And once you start talking "official" races, you run into requirements such as fire suppression, roll cages and performance balancing via power caps, air inlet restrictors and ballast. At which point, you're not talking showroom stock, anymore, but rules-balanced touring cars, which don't represent what the regular joe can buy, at all.

 

[TS050]

So, um, we have this now.



It's the same comparison, except its on a different track, and the Huayra and the Veyron SS have been added to the roster.

 

[HKS racer]

Your surgeon analogy is strange, because Harris is a licensed racing driver, with experience in open wheelers and in endurance racing. Technically... he is a surgeon. His timed laps are thus no more or less authoritative than those done by any other licensed racing driver.

I mean he is not an official organization.

Furthermore, the FIA doesn't certify lap records set outside FIA sanctioned racing series. Whether you're Chris Harris, McLaren or Scuderia Ferrari, running a car on a race track outside of an actual race doesn't confer you any "official" FIA record.

It just depends on what FIA want to do. If tomorrow someone manage to get the FIA badge for a time attack event than those times will be official.

 

[niky]

So, um, we have this now.



It's the same comparison, except its on a different track, and the Huayra and the Veyron SS have been added to the roster.

We are going to spend nine minutes talking about the greatest lap dancers in the world without really telling you anything new.

That video was about six minutes too long for what it showed.

I mean he is not an official organization.

It just depends on what FIA want to do. If tomorrow someone manage to get the FIA badge for a time attack event than those times will be official.

And it would be absolutely less illuminating than a test run by an auto publication, since there are no requirements that Time Attack cars remain stock, and if the cars each run with their own drivers and support teams, any times will be as much about driver and track prep as the car.

Several runs in the same conditions by an independent driver will tell you much more than a few glory laps by factory drivers with factory support. This is why magazines hire independent racing drivers to do lap times for them for group tests. And why they use one driver for all the times. Except some of the smaller mags, who audit with a second driver... but that's rarely required.

 

[jergto]

BTW this test really is useless. The P1 had pzero trofeos on, the lafa had corsas on. If you're gonna do something do it right. Trofeos are track orientated and come as a track option on the P1 so the test in inaccurate.

The 918 had Cup2s on which are about 0.5 faster than corsas but Slower than trofeos, they are michelins stickiest road legal tire and desiged for the track. I believe they come as standard on the 918 though.

Cris Harris tried the Trofeos and corsas on a porsche and got 2 seconds a lap faster on the trofeos




im sure you've seen how the P1 beat the 918 before after McLarensent it back on the stickier track tires to regain revenge on the porshe. Porsche were not offered another crack though.

You do know there are Regular Trofeos and Trofeo R's right? So which was used on the P1 for the video in the original post?

 

[HKS racer]

And it would be absolutely less illuminating than a test run by an auto publication, since there are no requirements that Time Attack cars remain stock, and if the cars each run with their own drivers and support teams, any times will be as much about driver and track prep as the car.

Several runs in the same conditions by an independent driver will tell you much more than a few glory laps by factory drivers with factory support. This is why magazines hire independent racing drivers to do lap times for them for group tests. And why they use one driver for all the times. Except some of the smaller mags, who audit with a second driver... but that's rarely required.

This way can guarantee even less than an official time attack.
What if someone bribe this "independent racing driver" to go faster with cars from his company and slower with others?

 

[niky]

This way can guarantee even less than an official time attack.
What if someone bribe this "independent racing driver" to go faster with cars from his company and slower with others?

What if someone bribes the team drivers to sandbag?

What if someone bribes a steward to turn a blind eye to illegal use of racing gas, stickier tires, or modifications?

What counts as an illegal modification?

Hell, in a time attack based on "stock cars", the manufacturer has the final say on what is "stock"... change the suspension, re-tune the engine, as long as that's released to the buyers as an update, that's "stock" Hell, Nissan has been doing that for the past few years with the GT-R and the Nurb. No need to "cheat" to win when you can simply keep tweaking the car to go faster every year.

Then you'll have people with special break-ins... shaved down tires... maybe even a little RS-R Ran-Up in the oil and some extra octane booster to trigger the "race gas" maps in the ECU.

A time attack tells you nothing besides the fact that the team brought the best combination of driver, car and setup modifications to the attack. Nothing more. Consider that in the exact same cars, two F1 drivers can be up to half a second or a second apart in terms of lap times.

If you want to see how different cars perform in a like-for-like test, you buy a set of them off the showroom floor and give them to a single racing driver to run on the same day, in similar conditions (similar miles on the odometer, all with fresh oil and fluids). No ifs or buts.

Don't like the results? Tough. Run your own comparo.

 

[McLaren]

This way can guarantee even less than an official time attack.
What if someone bribe this "independent racing driver" to go faster with cars from his company and slower with others?

Again, ironic that you're trying to assume someone could be attempting to skew the results in, when one of these manufacturers was actually found guilty of doing that by sending pre-tuned vehicles.

 

[HKS racer]

Again, ironic that you're trying to assume someone could be attempting to skew the results in, when one of these manufacturers was actually found guilty of doing that by sending pre-tuned vehicles.

Again posts like this just confirm that random tests on youtube have zero credibility. We don't know if the driver is cheat or a manifacture is cheating we can just watch the video.

 

[McLaren]

Again posts like this just confirm that random tests on youtube have zero credibility. We don't know if the driver is cheat or a manifacture is cheating we can just watch the video.

But, apparently you do to be making such assumptions?

What this really boils down to is the fact the Ferrari came last & you have an issue with that. Just like last year when you made up excuses about how the tabloids & Chris Harris were lying about Ferrari cheating comparisons, your excuse with this result is that someone bribed a driver now.

The big problem with that claim are the lap times. The guy who did these tests must be one hell of an amazing driver to be in the LaFerrari & know how to dial back the car enough to come just .34 of a second behind the McLaren. The margin of victory between these cars is far to close to purposefully set up those times.

 

[Stotty]

The Chris Harris test is him, Tiff Nedell and Marino Franchitti (younger brother of Dario).

All have a good amount of proper racing experience and I doubt all 3 will have been knobled by the manufacturers

I'm looking forward to this one

 

[Ddrizle]

Spoiler: More entertainment - Hyper 5 Pt.2

 

[TS050]

Aaaand...Part 3.

Spoiler: My Thoughts

Sorta surprised by the result. All of the cars were way off of their claimed 0-60 times (e.g. LaFerrari hitting 60 in 3.7 seconds, when the car has been timed doing it at 2.4, but I guess that was to do with the conditions). I was also surprised at how quickly the P1 gather speed; it's a monster. The 918's launch was incredible, too. The only thing I'm thinking of right now is the LaFerrari. There is video footage of it hitting 213mph on the strip- so how did it only reach about 195 this time?

Also, the comments on the video are pretty bad. There are a lot of people who think that the tests were all fixed for the P1 to win around the track and on the strip.

 

[niky]

Aaaand...Part 3.

Spoiler: My Thoughts

Sorta surprised by the result. All of the cars were way off of their claimed 0-60 times (e.g. LaFerrari hitting 60 in 3.7 seconds, when the car has been timed doing it at 2.4, but I guess that was to do with the conditions). I was also surprised at how quickly the P1 gather speed; it's a monster. The 918's launch was incredible, too. The only thing I'm thinking of right now is the LaFerrari. There is video footage of it hitting 213mph on the strip- so how did it only reach about 195 this time?

Also, the comments on the video are pretty bad. There are a lot of people who think that the tests were all fixed for the P1 to win around the track and on the strip.

The 2 degree grade going uphill, as well as weather conditions, would do that to the times. And given that the P1 is the lightest, has the most non-electric torque (which will matter more at higher speeds, where the electric motors will be less useful), and is turbocharged, to boot, it's pretty easy to build a case of it naturally being more accelerative at those speeds, anyway.

Aaaaand... one very important point... the McLaren delivers all its electric power through the gearbox.

Translation: McLaren's electric motivation gets the benefit of gearbox drive multiplication. Which means the electric motor is producing useful power at speeds way past those at which the LaFerrari's direct electric drive peters out.

At least the LaFerrari isn't last.

I do feel, though, that they need to redo the circuit challenge video in better conditions. Seems like both the P1 and LaFerrari could have picked up a few tenths in that Silverstone test in a few areas if the grip wasn't so patchy on their runs.

And please, make it a more technical layout. That video wasn't all that illuminating, except to show that supercars understeer on damp, wide-open tracks.

 

[TheCracker]

The only thing I'm thinking of right now is the LaFerrari. There is video footage of it hitting 213mph on the strip- so how did it only reach about 195 this time?

A lot of Vmax times done at Bruntingthorpe are done not from a standing start at one end of the strip, but joining the strip from an access road at speed. Even for those done as a standing start, where the start line is situated and where they decide the finish line is is upto whoever organises the event/highers the venue.