motor

Vansquish · 10-20-2004, 02:16 AM

Originally Posted by dons5

1. "the F1 doesn't have ABS and the Enzo does, so it's not an entirely fair comparison there either" just by saying that tells me you arent very intelligent when it comes too car performance dynamics. ABS is definetely safer for the road, and on a race track would probably be more consistent but to actually shorten braking distances it should have no effect if the guys testing these cars actually know what they are doing.

2. the Carbon Ceramic brakes might,if not probably do have an effect on shortening the braking distance but it wont be a big difference from standard brakes, the CC brakes are desigend for long track life lap after lap with virtually no fade and being much lighter (which very slightly shortens braking) thats what they're actually meant for not shorten the distances

3. "but the Mclaren F1 had low downforce for a reason. It was designed as a low drag car and that has its disadvantages when it comes to downforce." - Exactly cause all they wanted to do was beat the top speed record

4. You say that super slow road and track times for the Mac F1 were just poorly tested like poor conditions or poor drivers, but how come just about everysingle other Mac fan in this forum said what I said and thats because it was N. America version

Dude, don't listen to me or anyone else on the forum, go look up the data yourself, it's the only way you're going to learn. There is not, and never was, a North American version of the Mclaren F1. The poor numbers extracted by Road and Track are typical of their testing regimen, which isn't particularly scientific compared to many of the European magazines available. The fact is, R&T tested the Mclaren at a different place than it does many of its other tests...as a result, not only were the conditions different, but the track conditions were different, and the likelihood of being able to repeat those times at their normal proving grounds is doubtful indeed.

I'll grant you a proper driver is very capable of lockup-pending brake tests even in a non-ABS-equipped vehicle, and this is in practice the best way to slow a car down fast. The Enzo's brakes are more usable more of the time because of the fact that they're ABS-equipped, ergo, real-world braking distances would be shorter than the Mclaren's. The CC brakes are designed for fade-resistant use, yes, of course that's the case, I'm not as dense as you seem to think I am. Of course the fact that the rotating unsprung mass is lower helps to slow the car faster (lower moment of inertia for the disks means that following Newton's Laws, they'll stop more quickly than would heavier steel brakes), but this is a minute factor in shortening stopping distances. The fact is, CC brakes are not only fade-resistant, but more effective. Look at the ceramic-equipped stopping distances of a 996 Turbo compared to those of a non-CC-equipped car, for that matter, compare the same numbers in a CC equipped Mercedes CL versus a non-CC-equipped one. I think you'll find that the car stops not only feet, but meters shorter, not an inconsequential amount if you ask me. The F1's brakes were not stellar, they were merely adequate, even at the time and would certainly not trouble an Enzo's.

As for Point 3 on your shortlist, I beg to differ. Of course Murray was going for the fastest supercar in the world, but he was also attempting to make the best, most well-rounded one ever. In that he has succeeded brilliantly. The car is still the king 12 years after it broke cover. I hold to my earlier statement though...if you put an LM on the same track as an Enzo and told the drivers to go at it, my guess is that there would be little between them, especially if the F1 was equipped with some CC brakes.

dons5 · 10-20-2004, 03:51 AM

first of all we should get the LM out of here, we compare the Enzo Ferrari vs Maclaren F1 PERIOD, do you see Ferrari making an upgraded version of its Enzo no. Lets talk bout the "regular" versions.

and second he succeeded brilliantly in making the worlds most well rounded super car??? BS BS BS first of all its twitchy, super low downforce, brakes like u said even for the time werent that good etc

and 3rd ur telling me its more desirable just because u can carry one more person and it has a true manual? hahaa these are supposed to be built for the road race cars who cares if you can have 1 or 2 passengers. And about the manual ok obviosuly a real manual is more purer and fun but for the track paddle shift all the way. And if i absolutely must have a real manual then get an F40 or F50, not as fast as Mac obviosuly but many people say there even more fun/exciting/thrilling to drive then Mac and it feels like your going faster, (well then again you probably will be through the turns) and noone please ever say the Mac is the purest Car, cause that would be the F50.

mindgam3 · 10-20-2004, 09:11 AM

Firstly, the LM is SLOWER to 60 and 100 than the regular F1 but has better brakes.

The Enzo's brakes are 2 inches bigger and are carbon ceramic so they have a significant advantage over the regular mclaren. If the road F1 had the LM's brakes, let alone up to date carbon ceramic brakes then it would beat the Enzo from 0-100-0.

Secondly, the mclaren doesent produce "super low downforce", if that was the case it would be very unstable at 240 which it is indeed not.

All mclaren fans here agree that the enzo is the faster car around the track. What you are still, after 11 pages of arguing fail to see is that the mclaren was designed as a road going performance car. The enzo was designed as a road going race car.

On the country roads, because of the smaller size, the greater engine flexability, the more controlable manual box, the softer suspension set up and the superior road performance, the mclaren would easily be the winner on the road.

Please back up your sources when you say "many" believe that the F40 and F50 are more fun/exciting/thrilling to drive than the mac.... Tiff Needel, Marting brundle; both ex professional race drivers and rowan atkinson both think the mclaren is still the best, most rounded supercar money can buy.

The mclaren delivers better road performance and better straight line speed whilst still seating 3 people in comfort with enough room for luggage and a stereo system whilst still weighing less than an enzo.... and dont say this isnt important because it was designed to be used as an everyday supercar; these are advantages over the enzo. If track speed was your one and only concern, you'd buy a caterham or radical instead.....

st-anger · 10-20-2004, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by numerouno

Dear st-anger, thanks a lot for your comprehensive post on the topic and sorry that I couldn't reply earlier (been pretty busy with work). I agree with many parts of your post (but not all parts), and about the 600bhp thing; we can't really judge this things so easily 'cause there are and have been many of this sort of stories around many manufacturer's (I really hope that this story isn't true, otherwise I'd be very disappointed with my fabled marque).

...hi again - just wanted to know which parts u can´t agree...???

...and well, the 600hp thing ... is from a Ferrari engineer - and i think he should know...

Chingachgook · 10-20-2004, 01:43 PM

St-anger, it's alwais a pleasure to read you, you finally told us some interesting new (and astonishing news) about some cars we love so much !
If those things are said by you, I can only believe withoud any doubt

And also in Auto Motor Und Sport test in te little Levante track in south Italy the CGT was faster on the track compared to the Enzo

Only one question... I read that the CGT is difficoult to control, a bit nervous specially when the road has some bump ... is it true or it's an error from car magazines ?

Thanks in advance and another time good luck and good work ! keep on building FANTASTIC CARS !!!

dons5 · 10-20-2004, 11:47 PM

the whole Ferrari Mac thing will never end cause u guys dont know anything when it comes to passion exotica and all that stuff, and how is a regular manual better/faster then a paddle shift on a regular road, maybe more comfortable/smoother but thats it

Vansquish · 10-21-2004, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by dons5

the whole Ferrari Mac thing will never end cause u guys dont know anything when it comes to passion exotica and all that stuff, and how is a regular manual better/faster then a paddle shift on a regular road, maybe more comfortable/smoother but thats it

Good lord you're having a bit of trouble with your PMS (Privately wanting a Mclaren Syndrome/ Pretentious Maranello Snob etc...) this month aren't you? I'm not sure why you'd accuse a bunch of relatively well-versed people on a website geared (you'll have to pardon the pun) towards auto-enthusiasts, of not knowing about passion and exotica.

Nor for that matter does it make any sense to argue about the Manual vs. Paddle-shift thing either. Shift times are faster in the electro-hydraulic systems, but you've got much less flexibility there, as you can't control the clutch, feed in the power appropriately or anything of the sort, you just have to let the car's electronics sort it all out for you. Now I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be in control of those bits of my car, it makes the driving experience that much more fun and challenging. Oh...I guess I could be assuming too much, I mean, you DO know how to drive a stick don't you?

edit: I'm also fairly confident that if you stopped churning up the water the seas would be calmer. You're the source of the debate and the sole reason that the argument has kept up for so long.

dons5 · 10-21-2004, 04:36 AM

yes i do and properly, but if i was tryin to go as fast as i can on real roads i would still be changin gears as fast as possible i wouldnt be playin with clutch for smoother or more exciting funner etc. i want as fast as possible

Vansquish · 10-21-2004, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by dons5

yes i do and properly, but if i was tryin to go as fast as i can on real roads i would still be changin gears as fast as possible i wouldnt be playin with clutch for smoother or more exciting funner etc. i want as fast as possible

Then you're dumb, shouldn't be driving like an idiot on public roads in the first place.

dons5 · 10-21-2004, 05:33 AM

so your tellin me if u wanted to go as fast as possible on a road u would want the shifting to be nice and comfortable and want to be able to controll clutch etc, yes if u were cruising on road but for racing on road no

mindgam3 · 10-21-2004, 06:30 AM

lol, we never said the F1 box was slower than the manual, we know for outright speed the f1 box will be faster.

On a track theres no doubt a f1 box will generally make for a slightly faster car if u had an equivalent manual car but on the road when you dont want to be spinning off or you may have to up/down shift in irregular positions because of varying road conditions/traffic, a manual is more appropriate as you contorl the clutch.

An f1 box just rams the gears in as fast as possible, theres no intermediate that you can control between gears....

Vansquish · 10-21-2004, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by dons5

so your tellin me if u wanted to go as fast as possible on a road u would want the shifting to be nice and comfortable and want to be able to controll clutch etc, yes if u were cruising on road but for racing on road no

No, I'm telling you that you're stupid for wanting to go as fast as you can on a road rather than on a track. It's idiotic and dangerous. As for what I would want to do in such a situation, I'd want a real manual transmission, just because I'd be driving fast doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to be enjoying it. Playstation buttons and paddles are all very well and good, but they take a lot of the enjoyment out of driving.

Mindgam3 hit the nail right on the head, sequential trannys may be faster, but you lose a degree of control. I'd be willing to put bets down on a manual transmission vehicle outpacing an F1-style vehicle on a wet track given a skilled enough driver.

dons5 · 10-22-2004, 02:21 AM

lol u guys make me laugh

gobs3z · 10-26-2004, 01:21 AM

I always understood that CC brakes were better because they worked in all weather conditions on the spot and didn't have to be heated up. They dont neccessarrily break better or worse, but they are more efficient for racing just because you don't have to heat them up to get their full strength, they work right away. I wouldn't compare how good the breaks are on the car if they're CC or not. Once the non-CC breaks heat up they'll work just as good.

Vansquish · 10-26-2004, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by gobs3z

I always understood that CC brakes were better because they worked in all weather conditions on the spot and didn't have to be heated up. They dont neccessarrily break better or worse, but they are more efficient for racing just because you don't have to heat them up to get their full strength, they work right away. I wouldn't compare how good the breaks are on the car if they're CC or not. Once the non-CC breaks heat up they'll work just as good.

Actually...carbon brakes work best when they're warm or hot, hence the reason that the Mclaren F1 was NOT outfitted with them. The team behind the Mclaren F1 wanted to use CF brakes, but was unable to do so because they couldn't get them to operate efficiently at relatively low temperatures. When you have conventional steel brakes the opposite tends to be true. When you heat them up enough, this is when they begin to become more slick and this is when one experiences brake fade. CF brakes don't fade as easily because they dissipate heat better, but they also require more heat to work well. When they are working however, they are much more effective.