What is the Nurburgring record for Enzo?

[sentra_dude]

Originally Posted by mindgam3 my bad i just did a quick search n got some false information. Wanted to make sure but i didnt think they had all of tht either although i think the F50 did have power assisted steering?

No, the F50 doesn't have power steering, which is a good thing IMO. 8)

[bmagni]

Originally Posted by mindgam3 and please tell me what your source is? Mines autocar, probably the most reliable magazine to get data from..... Who recorded the enzo doing the 1/4 in 10.8?

no i dont have the source...

Originally Posted by mindgam3 If you've got any slight drop of petrol in your blood that you should know mclaren very well..... do you watch F1 at all? Everyone knows who mclaren is and so even if the mclaren didnt have the top speed, it still would be known seeing as though thts "their" only car they ever properly produced.

i know, ive watched f1 since loooooong ago... though not everybody knows bout f1... not everybody knows mclaren... then what made the f1 so famous ????

Originally Posted by mindgam3 Bullshit, the enzo was designed as a track/race focused car.

The enzo was made as a road car. All the electronics it has are made for road use, road safety as ferrari says. What do u say bout the pumps that raise the car so that the under part of the car doesnt hit some raised road parts... thats for road use. So is the power steeing... thats for road use
a normal steering is for track use
The car aerodynamics are more for road than for track...
The MC 12 is the real track car..

Originally Posted by mindgam3 The macca has none of these, its all pure direct input from u to the car.... and yet still manages to be an easy car to drive at low speeds...

so does the enzo

Originally Posted by mindgam3 part of the design of the F1 was to make it user friendly and suitable for everyday, the F40/F50/Enzo? i dont think so

regarding the enzo. i say it once again. its made as a road car. costumers use it for the road. if u still believe im wrong then ferrari is wrong.

Originally Posted by mindgam3 You can hardly hustle a 360 along country A and B roads let alone an enzo. With a macca you can....

What do u mean ? i dont understand

Originally Posted by mindgam3 Considering the macca out accelerates and F1 car from 180+ i think its got tht in the bag too....

huh ??? are u saying this like "the f50 and f40 have power steering" ???
which F1 cars ??? i see that almost impossible as the wieght/power relation of an F1 dont compare to the ones of a McLaren.... if ur right please prove it.

Originally Posted by mindgam3 So? The english love ferraris, and as i do think the enzo is an amazing car. But in mine and their opinion, the macca is easily the most rounded supercar considering its age, and also the best road car.

English think the best cars are english... (no offense intended).

[sentra_dude]

Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by mindgam3 and please tell me what your source is? Mines autocar, probably the most reliable magazine to get data from..... Who recorded the enzo doing the 1/4 in 10.8? no i dont have the source...

Then it doesn't mean anything...there are rumors of the F1 running below 11s 1/4mi as well, so what, they aren't verified so they don't mean anything.

Originally Posted by mindgam3 Bullshit, the enzo was designed as a track/race focused car. The enzo was made as a road car. All the electronics it has are made for road use, road safety as ferrari says. What do u say bout the pumps that raise the car so that the under part of the car doesnt hit some raised road parts... thats for road use. So is the power steeing... thats for road use a normal steering is for track use The car aerodynamics are more for road than for track... The MC 12 is the real track car..

Power steering is not just for road use anymore...many, many race cars use it now, and Formula One cars use it so there is less fatigue on the driver. For pure feel, nothing beats unassisted steering. You are not understanding...he's not saying the Enzo is a car you cannot drive on the road, its just one that is designed with track performance in mind, while still being road legal, much like the F40.

Originally Posted by mindgam3 The macca has none of these, its all pure direct input from u to the car.... and yet still manages to be an easy car to drive at low speeds... so does the enzo

Huh...you just said that the Enzo has power steering...and evo has stated it is completely lacking in feel...that's not what I'd call 'direct input'.

Originally Posted by mindgam3 part of the design of the F1 was to make it user friendly and suitable for everyday, the F40/F50/Enzo? i dont think so regarding the enzo. i say it once again. its made as a road car. costumers use it for the road. if u still believe im wrong then ferrari is wrong.

Yes...its road legal...and has some concessions...but overall the bias is towards the track, it has a very hard suspension that works best on very smooth roads, and the paddle gearbox is a track item as well.

Originally Posted by mindgam3 You can hardly hustle a 360 along country A and B roads let alone an enzo. With a macca you can.... What do u mean ? i dont understand

Both of those cars are very wide and in the Enzo's case, the suspension is very hard and easily upset by bumpy roads. The F1 isn't so wide, so you don't take up the road as much, and although the F1 does have snappy handling at the ragged edge (627hp & mid-engine rwd does that ), the softer suspension allows you to push it harder on less than perfect roads.

Originally Posted by mindgam3 Considering the macca out accelerates and F1 car from 180+ i think its got tht in the bag too.... huh ??? are u saying this like "the f50 and f40 have power steering" ??? which F1 cars ??? i see that almost impossible as the wieght/power relation of an F1 dont compare to the ones of a McLaren.... if ur right please prove it.

Don't forget aerodynamics. Modern Formula One cars produce huge amounts of drag...that's what happens when you have two giant wings, exposed tires, and a shitload of downforce. Did you know that 600hp, 2200lb LeMans cars are nearly as fast as F1 cars on high speed tracks? Its because they have vastly superior aerodynamics.

The F1 has a Cd of .32 and 627hp, a Formula One car from 1994 was only making about 750hp and probably Cd of close to 1.00 (if not more)...it doesn't matter that the Formula One only weighed ~1400lb and the F1 weighs 2500+lb. That is just too much drag to overcome, and not enough power. Actually the F1 could out accelerate a Formula One car of its day from 150mph. Its not all about power to weight, especially when you consider speeds above 150mph.

[mindgam3]

well basically sentra has answered all your questions.

I was saying that on a regular country road, the enzo's performance is rendered basically useless, as a 360's is, although to a lesser extent. The maccas, size, direct controls, low down torque, central driving position and manual 'box all make it a better road car - on many european roads, the enzo would almsot always take up more than a lane, even more so when fast driving. Just take a look at brundles supercar dvd and compare the F1 and F40 on the road. And then consider that th enzo is even bigger than the F40....

How can you say the aerodynamics are more for road than trakc, you're never going to use the aerodynamics to their full potential on the road, you're not going to be going round corners fast enough or building up enough speed. On driving roads its more about mechanical grip than aerodynamics....

Sure the F40 and F50 were dubbed "F1 cars for the road" but they're far too stiffly rigid and low for any serious road driving. Their home is on the track - much the same for the enzo...

[bmagni]

Originally Posted by sentra_dude Huh...you just said that the Enzo has power steering...and evo has stated it is completely lacking in feel...that's not what I'd call 'direct input'.

i meant that the enzo was an easy to drive in the road car... not bout the power steering...

Originally Posted by sentra_dude Yes...its road legal...and has some concessions...but overall the bias is towards the track, it has a very hard suspension that works best on very smooth roads, and the paddle gearbox is a track item as well.

i wasnt refering to being road legal but to be a friendly road car.
yeah it was built with track testing. but that isnt the aim of the car. its being a road car usable for the track. not a road legal track car... which the mclaren f1 lm is.
the suspension can be adjusted.

Originally Posted by sentra_dude Don't forget aerodynamics. Modern Formula One cars produce huge amounts of drag...that's what happens when you have two giant wings, exposed tires, and a shitload of downforce. Did you know that 600hp, 2200lb LeMans cars are nearly as fast as F1 cars on high speed tracks? Its because they have vastly superior aerodynamics. The F1 has a Cd of .32 and 627hp, a Formula One car from 1994 was only making about 750hp and probably Cd of close to 1.00 (if not more)...it doesn't matter that the Formula One only weighed ~1400lb and the F1 weighs 2500+lb. That is just too much drag to overcome, and not enough power. Actually the F1 could out accelerate a Formula One car of its day from 150mph. Its not all about power to weight, especially when you consider speeds above 150mph.

which lemans cars against which f1 cars ????
vastly superior aerdyinamics in which way ???
i still doubt it can accel faster than one. i know bout the cd. and all that stuff. an f1 car with the correct tune up wouldnt be beaten by a mc f1.
anyway. theres no proof of that... and now ir talkin bout 150 mph... which is far slower than the first 180... and makes me doubt bout it more...

overall the mc f1 isnt a well balanced car... its a pure speed car or speedy road car however u wanna call it... the enzo isnt just speed and yet it does lots of stuff better or equal than the f1... thats IMO a better car...

[bmagni]

Originally Posted by mindgam3 How can you say the aerodynamics are more for road than trakc, you're never going to use the aerodynamics to their full potential on the road, you're not going to be going round corners fast enough or building up enough speed. On driving roads its more about mechanical grip than aerodynamics....

i meant the enzo aerodynamics arent meant just for track use... if they were meant for that it would have a big rear wing. itd be longer...

[mindgam3]

The McLaren F1 dvd states that the mclaren can out accelerate an F1 above 180.....

The main reason why the enzo isnt a good road car is its size, this is also why its a better track car the the mclaren.

What are you trying to say about aerodynamics? Aerodynamics only work effectively on road cars at relatively high speeds, eg on track. You may as well not have them when out hoonin around country roads, its all mechanical grip as any caterham driver will tell you....

overall the mc f1 isnt a well balanced car... its a pure speed car or speedy road car however u wanna call it... the enzo isnt just speed and yet it does lots of stuff better or equal than the f1... thats IMO a better car...

Its not a pure speed car!!! Its a DRIVERS CAR!!!

Its faster than an enzo in a straight line; top speed and acceleration, period.
It has the same but more accesible torque.
Handling is debatable, the macca is set up for road and so has a softer chassis, the enzo is more stiffly sprung and so is better on track, yet the macca only will loose out in the corners and braking zones.
Its smaller - better road car.
The mclaren has a radio and can has space for luggage.
Its rarer.
Its got a gold lined engine bay for christs sake

The enzo is faster on a track, which it was deisgned for, the mclaren is the much better road car which evens it out on tht respect.

The enzo has better brakes; im not suprised, so it should its 10 years older, put the same brakes on the mclaren which is lighter and then we'll see where we are.

Please inform me of the many things it does better than an F1 other than the two i've mentioned?

And let me remind you of the biggest fact you seem to forget... the fact you are comparing a 10 year old car with the best of the latest generation of supercars.....

[sentra_dude]

Originally Posted by sentra_dude Don't forget aerodynamics. Modern Formula One cars produce huge amounts of drag...that's what happens when you have two giant wings, exposed tires, and a shitload of downforce. Did you know that 600hp, 2200lb LeMans cars are nearly as fast as F1 cars on high speed tracks? Its because they have vastly superior aerodynamics. The F1 has a Cd of .32 and 627hp, a Formula One car from 1994 was only making about 750hp and probably Cd of close to 1.00 (if not more)...it doesn't matter that the Formula One only weighed ~1400lb and the F1 weighs 2500+lb. That is just too much drag to overcome, and not enough power. Actually the F1 could out accelerate a Formula One car of its day from 150mph. Its not all about power to weight, especially when you consider speeds above 150mph. which lemans cars against which f1 cars ???? vastly superior aerdyinamics in which way ??? i still doubt it can accel faster than one. i know bout the cd. and all that stuff. an f1 car with the correct tune up wouldnt be beaten by a mc f1. anyway. theres no proof of that... and now ir talkin bout 150 mph... which is far slower than the first 180... and makes me doubt bout it more... overall the mc f1 isnt a well balanced car... its a pure speed car or speedy road car however u wanna call it... the enzo isnt just speed and yet it does lots of stuff better or equal than the f1... thats IMO a better car...

The 1998 LeMans winning 911 GT1 would probably lap almost as fast as an older (mid 1990s) Formula One at a track with long sweeping corners and very high speeds because it has much less drag.

vastly superior aerdyinamics in which way ???

Much less drag but around the same levels of downforce. I'm not saying the Formula One engineers don't know what they are doing, if that's what your thinking. They just have a much tougher starting point with open wheels, and on top of that they have to contend with rules that place many restrictions on the cars in terms of aerodynamics.

i still doubt it can accel faster than one. i know bout the cd. and all that stuff. an f1 car with the correct tune up wouldnt be beaten by a mc f1. anyway. theres no proof of that... and now ir talkin bout 150 mph... which is far slower than the first 180... and makes me doubt bout it more...

Why do you doubt it? Is it so hard to believe that 627hp in a very slippery aerodynamics package could out-accelerate 750hp in something with more drag than a flat wall driving through the air? Do you know anything about aerodynamics? Drag is proportional to the square of the velocity...so Formula One cars, with their huge Cd, have to fight much, much more wind resistance than either the F1 or LeMans cars.

I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well. The early to mid-1990s were a low point in power for Formula One cars, it was right after a big rules changes crippled the out-put...its really not that hard to believe that the McLaren could be faster at very high speeds.

[bmagni]

Originally Posted by sentra_dude I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well.

thats what i was thinkin... thats why i was surprised...

just to finish this up. for me the enzo is better car than the f1... ive stated my points and opinions, facts and figures.
the f1 is a 10 yo car. and performs as a car of that age... its fast but not impressive in any other way. through history making a fast straight line car has been easier than makin a balanced car... the mclaren is done that way. just a fast straight line "drivers car" for the small lanes of highways.

[sentra_dude]

Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by sentra_dude I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well. thats what i was thinkin... thats why i was surprised... just to finish this up. for me the enzo is better car than the f1... ive stated my points and opinions, facts and figures. the f1 is a 10 yo car. and performs as a car of that age... its fast but not impressive in any other way. through history making a fast straight line car has been easier than makin a balanced car... the mclaren is done that way. just a fast straight line "drivers car" for the small lanes of highways.

Actually...I would say the McLaren F1 is impressive for other reasons besides its straight line speed (although the straight line speed is a big part, the car is so much more, and you seem to be missing that). Here's why I think its special; the quality (just look at pictures of the McLaren, everything is jewel like), the light weight, the handling, the compactness, the central driving position, the flexibility and tremendous torque of the engine, the sound of the engine, the looks of the car, the lack of driver aids (such as power steering), and the exclusivity.

[dons5]

ok can we all just shut up cause after 9 pages this isnt going anywhere

ill just say what i like better and why without dogging the other one down, and so should all of u

Id take the Enzo/F50/F40 cause when im buying a car like that i dont want a car that has been compromised for the road (well they all have been, but according to you guys the Mac F1 even more so),

i dont want a car with a cd player,

i dont want a car with all that luggage space,

it kinda wrecks part of the what makes the car so special thing, you wanna be able to say to people ya this car is almost a road legal race car, stripped down etc it jus makes the whole car/experience that much more special, and the looks of course Mac F1 is awesome to look at but with an F40/F50/Enzo beside the Mac everyone IN MY OPINION would be staring at the Ferrari's.

And most importantly in i think it was a road and car article between Mac F1 Porsche 959 and F40 in the end the guys both said by far the F40 is most exciting and fun to drive it raises your blood pressure like none of the other cars can

[sentra_dude]

^^^That's what an LM is for...

[mindgam3]

Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by sentra_dude I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well. thats what i was thinkin... thats why i was surprised... just to finish this up. for me the enzo is better car than the f1... ive stated my points and opinions, facts and figures. the f1 is a 10 yo car. and performs as a car of that age... its fast but not impressive in any other way. through history making a fast straight line car has been easier than makin a balanced car... the mclaren is done that way. just a fast straight line "drivers car" for the small lanes of highways.

lol, i accept that you think the enzo is a better car, and they're so closely matched that its down to a matter of opinion, but you definately have got ideas of the F1 completely wrong.

The object of the mclaren is not just pure striaght line speed, very far from it, its supposed to be a drivers car as ive said many many times, a drivers car for the road. Not straight line highways/motorways - thats what mercs are for - its for the twisties.... take a look at brundles dvd for instance, the country roads are what im talking about....

It doesent perform as a 10 year old car, the fact it could out run anything on the road, and most on the track even though it wasnt designed for that must tell you this..... Do you thinkg the F40 and F50 perform like the cars of their age? I dont think so, the same with the mclaren....

The mclaren is one of THE best handling cars in general, maybe not right on the limit on a track, but i'd put that down to the soft road set up more than anything.

Many people consider the F1 to be the greatest car in the world. Many consider it to be the most significant supercar ever since supercars began, arguarbly with the countach/mura.

The enzo never made a big of an impact on the world as the F1 did, maybe because the enzo came out in the few years we had the zonda, koneigsegg, CGT and SLR all at once, but maybe its because its the most uncompromised designed car ever?

If you think the mclaren is purely about straight line speed, then you clearly dont know anything about the mclaren, except one figure.... 240.1mph, which incidently, considering you say it performs like a 10 year old car, that figure still hasnt been beaten....

The benchmark, the car that all supercars have to be compared to is the mclaren F1, the enzo, the cgt, the slr, the f40, the f50, the zonda, the koenigsegg are all compared to the mclaren. Some of them do things slightly better than the mclaren, but non are as well rounded and theres not going to be a car that can beat this well roundedness for quite some time yet.....

[mindgam3]

Originally Posted by dons5 ok can we all just shut up cause after 9 pages this isnt going anywhere ill just say what i like better and why without dogging the other one down, and so should all of u Id take the Enzo/F50/F40 cause when im buying a car like that i dont want a car that has been compromised for the road (well they all have been, but according to you guys the Mac F1 even more so), i dont want a car with a cd player, i dont want a car with all that luggage space, it kinda wrecks part of the what makes the car so special thing, you wanna be able to say to people ya this car is almost a road legal race car, stripped down etc it jus makes the whole car/experience that much more special, and the looks of course Mac F1 is awesome to look at but with an F40/F50/Enzo beside the Mac everyone IN MY OPINION would be staring at the Ferrari's. And most importantly in i think it was a road and car article between Mac F1 Porsche 959 and F40 in the end the guys both said by far the F40 is most exciting and fun to drive it raises your blood pressure like none of the other cars can

Firstly, i think you mean road and track....
Secondly, i personally think road and track isnt a good mag
Thirdly, the heart BPM that they took doesent neccesarily mean a more exciting car, it could be interpreted as a more scary car to drive.
And finally in the same article, and i quote "Well, I've fallen in love with the McLaren. It is the greatest street car I've ever driven. "

[SnakeBitten]

Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by sentra_dude I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well. thats what i was thinkin... thats why i was surprised... just to finish this up. for me the enzo is better car than the f1... ive stated my points and opinions, facts and figures. the f1 is a 10 yo car. and performs as a car of that age... its fast but not impressive in any other way. through history making a fast straight line car has been easier than makin a balanced car... the mclaren is done that way. just a fast straight line "drivers car" for the small lanes of highways.

This is truly unbelievable.....Ive come to realize that the guys with this mentality are around 19-20 years old....I now fully understand....The Enzo is there Mclaren F1 and they will defend it to the death even if facts show otherwise....Ive never heard anyone call an F1 a straightline car...Shows a real lack of understanding and knowledge of the car....I will take any bunch of fast cars from this era and pit it against the F1 on any track and I guarantee you it will be in amoung the top 3-5 if not winning a few....It cant do that if its just a straightline car...My God..you're equating the F1 with straighline champs like a Mustang....If you were my son you'd be grounded for life for making this post j/k