isv

That is an interesting one. What is the ride height of the gt3 racing cars at VLN 24 hours around the ring? Optically, to me at least, the SLS gt3 cars for example sit very low and I can't imagine the P1 even in race mode would sit lower than something like this.



A further question I suppose is how much of the claimed 600kg downforce would the P1 produce at non race mode ride-height with wings deployed at maximum attack. The 12C claimed figures are about 120kg and I think it's reasonable to assume the P1 would produce a good bit more than the 12c even when not in full on race mode. Even at half the maximum, for a road car, 300kg would be a heck of a lot of downforce...

That being said, very impressive that the bugatti supersport felt more sorted through fast corners than the P1 though as aero is supposed to be the party piece of the P1.

mousecatcher

I'd say 2.5". Here's the 2 best shots I can find from my recent trip.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1046263...57636451844094
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1046263...57636451844094

Petevb

It seems many here are viewing the P1 times with significant incredulity. Personally I don't, and in fact it seems something in the 6:3x range is necessary if McLaren is to be judged to have done a decent job.

This car's design brief and purpose in life is to set fast lap times. It's put everything else: cost, usability, top speed, even driver involvement, behind this singular goal. This is essentially the philosophy of a Radical but with nicer build quality and interior, made by an F1 manufacture and on a nearly unlimited budget. It's even banned from using its fastest mode on the street, a fast road car that's not just impossible but literally illegal to use on the road as it's intended to be driven.

Given this, if it doesn't set blistering times a huge problem exists.

In due time I'm sure we'll see how fast it was, but for the sake of argument let's say it turned a 6:38. Impressive… or is it? We've got the Nissan GT-R Nismo turning a 7:08, 30 seconds slower. So the McLaren is ~7% faster… But the Nissan's design brief wasn't to be the fastest streetable track car… It's got 4 seats, and a proper boot. It was built from steel, on real a budget. It doesn't have an active aero system that would be banned in pro motorsports, nor does it need to be driven with the stability systems on to be usable by anyone who isn't a deity. It's got a heavy four wheel drive system designed for sub 3 second 0-60 launches that also makes it semi-usable in the wet. It's perfectly legal to drive around in its fastest mode. And most of all it is fundamentally nearing a decade old.

The P1, on a proper banked corner in a car making near its own weight in down force, will I'm certain pull phenomenal cornering forces. But the lap time of 6:3X isn't for me a “it can't be that fast” number. Instead it's a “it had better be that fast” number. Because if they can't hit that, with all the advantages they have and compromises they have made that make it fundamentally less usable everywhere than for example the 918, then they have failed. Simple.

But given the team involved and the resources they have available, I personally doubt they failed.

wtdoom

The proof is in the pudding and talk is cheap.

12 c at ring = a celebratory video

12c at tg track =Mclaren baked a celebratory cake ( i kid you not )

p1 at the ring = " err yes we did it but we will never tell you or show you and we had no witnesses or independent timing "
call me a cynic ...

tripleblack

Great posts Pete, wtdoom. On the one hand, it won't be easy getting sufficient oxygen (for McLaren) without a game-changer. On the other, given the legacy of the F1 and expectations of the P1, it would be surprising if Porsche & Ferrari allowed themselves to be caught napping too far behind. McLaren is likely to need a new bar, deep and patient investor pockets, and/or a healthy dose of national self-interest to survive & thrive.

tripleblack

duplicate

Petevb

Maybe. But you can see their point of view.

Fairly or not, the P1 will be judged vs the The Ferrari based on lap times that none of the owners of either car could possibly hope to achieve. An F1 driver here or there might be the exception, of course, but that's just as academic as they won't be turning 'Ring times unless paid handsomely enough to justify the insurance waivers.

Given that, owners are largely spending over a million dollars to buy this single academic number, one they hope will give them bragging rights at the local country club, and one which will therefore determine to a large extent the value of the McLaren Brand. Given these stakes I wouldn't be in any rush to show my hand either if it hasn't been called. If the The Ferrari puts up a time and I'm quicker I'll leak my video, while if I'm slower I'll either hold my tongue or go back for another shot.

At some point however, it's inevitable these two cars will meet, and both Ferrari and McLaren need to put their best foot forward and control that meeting if possible, hence the "no independent tests" rules, etc. Both have so much riding on the outcome that it's hard to see it being any other way.

It makes you respect Porsche all the more, of course, for giving relatively unfettered access and putting a number on paper. They do have less to lose, however, as their car was not built with the same "lap times above all else" philosophy.

The existence of this thread, and the stock we all put into this academic, rather pointless number is perhaps the real problem and the reason we haven't seen it released. We're all on the edge of our seats to figure out which is faster, hoping that it will tell us something about which is the better car. And it will tell us something: which is the faster race car, around a particular track, on a particular day.

The assumption, however, that this really tells us much of anything about which is the better street car seems the real problem. Because I argue that regardless of which way the chips eventually fall, it won't. In fact it's entirely possible that the issue was decided before the cars ever turned a wheel, simply because of McLaren's goal of being the fastest. Remember that when the F1 was conceived it wasn't supposed to be the fastest anything, it was supposed to be the best. Being fastest was a side effect, not a goal. I think that original philosophy is the better one.

heynow

I actually don't see the point. If the P1 posted a 6:3x time on the ring, this would be a selling point, in fact a huge selling point as it would go directly to the bragging rights at the country club set. I would have looked at that number and said, hmmm… maybe it is worth calling the Mc folks and learning more. Mclaren had trouble selling out the P1. Why publish the number after you have sold out the car? Wouldn't it make sense to generate some enthusiasm and publish and outlandish ring time? That in turn would lead to more sales and more money which Mclaren could use. The fact that this is coming out after the fact really strikes me as pointless and therefore much more likely to be untrue.

wtdoom

i Just got back from the ring with my CGT on cups . I did a 7 min full lap and feel no need to post a picture , have a witness or anything .

Im sure you are all happy with that . Can someone please call fastest laps.com ?

W8MM

boyko23

Great!!!
Now, imagine what will happen, if there is no snow, haha

wtdoom

Oh yes there was snow , pah , the heater was on I tell you
evidence ? who needs this sillyness ?

GVA-SFO

Well, IMO, the Ring lap time is more a question of the ***** and the memory of the driver. Sure to set a "fast lap" these days, the car must have a lot of juice, and be very sticky.
But, it is still one of these very rare "track" (still IMO, like Peaks Pike !) where the driver ..needs to be at the super best ..to make it fast.
(I'm surprised that we do not talk so much about the (hyper)performance of Sébastien Loeb at PP. I felt that this was totally outstanding, or better: much more than that. Sure a 4WD giving 875HP (3.2l V6 TT), with a curb weight of 875 kg (1'930 lbs) is a real beast, but, to drive it up this hill the way he did it, ..it is a pure driver performance.)
To be back on the Ring, I have been there, and to be honest, this is the only track to date where, I was not smiling inside my helmet. It is "horrible", the track is narrow, the grass between the track and the rails is more than narrow, a lot of these (many) curves are blind, forget about flagmen, and, I hope you realize what's up, if you arrive in the "next curve" near the limit, and, at the last second, you said to yourself: "Sh.., it is NOT "this" one !"
So, until this "very bad mistake" cannot happen again, ..you have to make a "1'000" laps there, which takes for ever ! (I very much prefer to move about 100km "North", ..and spend days in Spa.)
All to say that I have the feeling that on the Ring lap times, with small differences in seconds, it is a complete non sense to judge that "this car" is better than "that one". ..But just think about the driver, that makes that difference.

Fred R. C4S

As a retired ME with half of my career spent in vehicle development, I put little stock in the meaningless comparison of Ring lap times. When you are testing one item against another, it is imperative that you control as many of the variables as possible so only the difference between the two things you are testing can be determined. In it's simplest, we have four major variables, Car, Driver, Track, and Weather. Unless you use the same driver in back to back runs on the same track in the same conditions, exact performance differentials between the cars cannot be opbtained with any statitistical validity. That's why you must run again and again over several days alternating between cars to quantify the difference in performance. Anything else is just fodder for discussion over a few drinks.

GVA-SFO

I agree Fred, where I think that the Ring lap times depend so much on the driver.
At the Ring, to finish your lap, you better be under "the limit", as any little tiny excursion above it ..have a very large chance to be very-very seriously penalized.
In a more "civilized" track, like Spa, (that I like very much), you "could" (but, still, should Not) get over the limit, and in "many" places, you could then end up in the gravel, with chances that yourself and your car ..will be still there.
May be a good blog to read about the Ring is :
http://www.nurburgring.org.uk/warning.php#.UvCGTj1dXMY