F1technical.net

No...... That's the way that we know the McLaren is built and the figures that we know from the car on the road. What turns up at the test is an entirely different matter. Oh, and personal anecdotes are lovely and all but Ferraris have had a great deal of recent, well documented build and quality problems.

You either take it or you leave it. It doesn't add up.

So the Mclaren has turbo chargers and the Ferrari is NA, but the Mclaren has more power so must be faster? The Mclaren is not as fast off the line in a straight drag race as the 458, but is quicker at the end of the quarter mile. That would mean on most tracks, the 458 has an advantage coming out of each and every corner.

Also, the Mclaren has less parts, including no anti roll bars, but the 458 seems to out handle it, so maybe Ferrari is better at tuning handling with ARB than Mclaren are without. Not an unreasonable explanation is it?

It is possible the Mclaren is inferior in performance despite it's advantages on paper.

There's no way the 458 can out-handle the 12C. The construction of the 12C is like no car of its type that has ever been constructed before, and is much lighter for one thing. Engine needs improving, gearbox needs improving, traction needs improving but one thing the 12C is designed to do is get around a corner in the fastest and least dramatic way possible handling-wise. Massive power-slides are simply not fast I'm afraid.

I'm extremely sceptical of the risk that McLaren are taking with this car, but I'm even more sceptical of many of the timed track tests undertaken.

Well, I am not sure how long I should wait for a test/shootout/review that favours it over the Ferrari.

PS - How ya been Seg?

munudeges wrote:There's no way the 458 can out-handle the 12C. The construction of the 12C is like no car of its type that has ever been constructed before, and is much lighter for one thing. Engine needs improving, gearbox needs improving, traction needs improving but one thing the 12C is designed to do is get around a corner in the fastest and least dramatic way possible handling-wise. Massive power-slides are simply not fast I'm afraid.

I'm extremely sceptical of the risk that McLaren are taking with this car, but I'm even more sceptical of many of the timed track tests undertaken.

So you are saying that the whole drivetrain needs to be improved but despite those flaws it still outperforms the 458?

Radical design and an intention to be the best doesn't guarantee success. The chap who designed the detail on the 458 that bursts into flame probably thought he'd come up with the perfect design for that detail too.

munudeges wrote:There's no way the 458 can out-handle the 12C. The construction of the 12C is like no car of its type

no possible way? how bout better chassis tuning? The weight difference is not big at all, or the power difference. Ferrari's experience obviously outweighs Mclaren's new chassis construction. You're reasons aren't really very substantial.

munudeges wrote:No...... That's the way that we know the McLaren is built and the figures that we know from the car on the road. What turns up at the test is an entirely different matter. Oh, and personal anecdotes are lovely and all but Ferraris have had a great deal of recent, well documented build and quality problems.


You either take it or you leave it. It doesn't add up.

What doesn't add up is the fact that you think a 2% power advantage and a 1% weight advantage automatically means that one ROAD CAR is better than another. Ferrari has a 400% advantage in experience of making a ROAD CAR that is REWARDING to drive. Mclaren beat Ferrari with the F1vs F40, but this time they lost with the mp4-12c vs 458. In ROAD CARS, confidence counts for more than a negligible stat sheet advantage.

But, I will say the mp4-12c is one cool technical tour de force, but the 458 is the better handling more rewarding car. Once mclaren sorts the handling, it might beat the 458, but not now it doesn't

Why did you chose 400% more experience? I'm intrigued. Is it based on number of models I'd thought it would be a lot more than that. Or perhaps you considered the man-years of experience in their design teams?

Then I consider your 1% and 2% numbers and if they are also plucked from the air. you see if it just 1% then the driver's weight and fuel would make a significant difference.

Sorry for being pedantic, but this is a technical forum....

munudeges wrote:There's no way the 458 can out-handle the 12C. The construction of the 12C is like no car of its type that has ever been constructed before, and is much lighter for one thing. Engine needs improving, gearbox needs improving, traction needs improving but one thing the 12C is designed to do is get around a corner in the fastest and least dramatic way possible handling-wise. Massive power-slides are simply not fast I'm afraid.

I'm extremely sceptical of the risk that McLaren are taking with this car, but I'm even more sceptical of many of the timed track tests undertaken.

Reminds me of Jemery Clarkson saying about his Merc E63 AMG and Hammond's BMW M3 "It is impossible for your car to be faster than mine."

I love the 12C, but I will admit that perhaps its handling is not as good as the Ferrari.

I bet that May'd prefer it, even if it was tested on the Nuerburgring- it's more comfortable (or at least from what I've heard.)

richard_leeds wrote:Why did you chose 400% more experience? I'm intrigued. Is it based on number of models I'd thought it would be a lot more than that. Or perhaps you considered the man-years of experience in their design teams?

Then I consider your 1% and 2% numbers and if they are also plucked from the air. you see if it just 1% then the driver's weight and fuel would make a significant difference.

Sorry for being pedantic, but this is a technical forum....

I chose 400% because Mclaren has 15 years and Ferrari 60 years of road car building
572 hp to 580 hp is like 1.3 % and weights are close to 2% at 1350 vs 1385 for Mclaren and Ferrari respectively I am being technical and I'm not plucking anything from the air. In road cars those ARE SMALL DIFFERENCES. Your accusations are totally off base. Also ,in cars this heavy fuel and driver weight do make measurable differences not huge but they are there. why did you even want to argue this stuff?

The 458 is faster than the Enzo if I recall correctly, so it must be damn fast.

Being that it's the replacement of the F430 and no special edition ala enzo, 40, 50 etc. It must be really great. Makes me wonder.. did they plan such a good car? Maybe I'd be sad if I had a very special enzo and a guy with a regular 458 which you can buy everywhere(yes, of course) beats me :p. That's 9 years of development.


I must admin I'm no ferrari fan, and the 458 is the first ferrari that I like. I mean.. they're not ugly, up to the moment for me they weren't nice at least if I had the money I wouldn't buy a ferrari, until the 458.


Though I'd really like that the mp4 beat the ferrari.


I wonder how would they perform with equal tires.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDWgbOyN ... r_embedded[/youtube]

Giblet wrote:Considering the Mp4-12C was designed to take out the car that was at Ferrari at the time, the 360, they have done a great job. The Mclaren completely trumps it in every way. The 458 is still spanking new, and was not a target when the Mp4-12c was designed.

Now that the target is there, and the reviews are in, an mp4-12c "S" or "R" or "XsIgta-vSPEC-qq" will HAVE to compare to the 458 more favourably.

Ferrari have made a stellar car and got the jump on Macca while they were in gestation.

But the cars are so close, Mclaren has to do very little to bring it 'up to speed'.

I hope that just a story that you made up and not some PR release from Mclaren.

munudeges wrote:Engine needs improving, gearbox needs improving, traction needs improving

What needs improving in the engine? It's a turbo so it'll always have a little lag compared to the NA engine in the 458. But it's performance is otherwise top drawer.

The gearbox is fine so far as I have read.

What's wrong with the traction other than some people want to be able to do tyre burning drifts in corners?

@ Richard

This may be a technical forum, but how else do you explain an exciting car to one that censured your fun.
Like a top comedian stopping mid way through a funny story, I would be frustrated.
The 12 C understeers, and needs to be driving a specific way(robotic), to extract the most of it's vast potential.

Had it been German, no doubt some would be calling it soulless. Seems being technically brilliant is one thing, and grin factor quite another. The crux of the matter here is if I fork out 160k plus on a car, I want to be able to do with it as I choose, and not be held back by electronic interferences.
Now if McLaren could make this car dance on an apex, in a fashion that wouldnt make me end up in a hedge... Then this car would be near perfect. I really sense Alot of Ron Dennis about this car, fantastic boss, shame he lacks exciting character.

Pierce89 wrote:I chose 400% because Mclaren has 15 years and Ferrari 60 years of road car building

Thanks. I think it was the use of capital letters and the use of tiny numbers (1%) and huge round numbers (400%) that made me wonder about your post. Apologies.

I'd say McLaren are effectively a new entrant to this market. One car 15 years ago isn't really relevant, or is it? On that basis Ferrari have infinitely more road car experience. Now infinity is a stupid silly number so I'll stop now!