Why is the xp5 faster than the f1?

Until about 50mph both cars are the same but then after that theres a big difference. Is it b/c the xp5 doesnt have a rev limeter.

u huh, it wos set at 7500 rpm but it wos disabled, and hello new world record :)

http://gpgarage.narod.ru/a_f1tlab.html

Read it!

-Mike :smokin:

I'm not quite sure what you mean. XP5 is an F1, it just happens to be one of the prototypes. All of the surviving prototypes have been brought up to full production spec for the most part, so there would really be nothing about XP5 to make it faster.

McLaren Cars did remove the rev limiter on XP5 at VW's Ehra Leissen test track when they performed the 240mph top speed run, but that was only temporary to allow the car more top end in 6th. With the rev limiter in tact, the F1 is gearing limited to approximately 225-230mph.

Are you comparing two sets of test figures? Is that why you are posing this question? If so, and you are comparing the acceleration figures from the Autocar test (which were actually obtained using XP4) to the figures from the Road&Track test of the Ameritech F1, then it's hard to say why the Ameritech car was slower other than the changes which may have been necessary to certify the car in this country.

>8^)
ER

The speed figures so commonly quoted by popular magazines are the example of an isolated, non-optimized test. The few magazines that actually test cars themselves, such as Road & Track, CAR, and a couple others have promoted their numbers throughout the printed media, as other magazines use their data.

For the most part, these numbers are a poor representation of the true capability of the car. They are conducted in often questionable conditions, either too hot or on road surfaces that are compromized. The more error inducing concern is the driver himself. The tests are conducted by a driver that more than likely does not have intemate experience with the McLaren. Such experience allows a driver to understand the "feel" of the car and when and where to shift and where to push. In other words, where the power curve is at its most potent. That comes only with feel, that comes only from experience and time with the car.

The magazines make a few passes and whollaa....the industry standard speed data statistics.. I do not accept that as a standard. There is too much error, or questionable accuracy in an isolated test by a driver that may or may not have maximized the potential.

Another factor to consider is the fact that this car is not owned by the magazine and is probably an owner car that is leant to the magazine for the purpose of testing. This situation does not lend to a driver learning the intricacies of the car or using all of the potential of the car. A missed shift can be a very costly, damaging event. As a result most tests are quite conservative with regard to the overall full capability of the car.

In light of all above, I find it very upsetting to see cars of comparable class (the Enzo for example) to be compared to a series of questionable time sheet numbers. Stack the cars up against each other and then we shall truely see.

With the exception of the speed data provided by McLaren Cars Limited, I take little truth from the numbers put forth by the magazines. They have no credibility to me when compared to another car. I find a flesh a blood comparison side by side to be more informative and authoritative with regard to overall performance. Even then it is hard to eliminate bias opinions and the agenda of drivers or their familiarity with the car in hand.

The Road & Track numbers are absolutely horrible. They should be ashamed of what they are trying to promote. They fall victum to the addage that "newer is better", and therefore showing such will sell more magazines. I am sure McLaren Cars Ltd would contend otherwise with regard to Road & Tracks numbers.

Car and Driver once asked me to put together a group of owners who would allow "testing" of a McLaren F1, Jaguar XJ-220, Porsche 959, and a Bugatti (Dauer) EB 110. The Dauer was out because none were legally in the US. The owners of the remaining vehicles declined because journalists would be driving the cars. It seems that the "testing" is more of a joy ride for the egos of the journalists than doing a comparison. I never understood what the point was. Different cars, different tastes. The articles are so suggestive that why bother.
A couple of weeks ago a journalist blew up a Carrera GT motor shifting to second instead of fourth. Which is why the rest of us get the left overs.

It seems that the "testing" is more of a joy ride for the egos of the journalists than doing a comparison. I never understood what the point was.I cant think of any real incentive for them to produce super accurate numbers in their measurements and test the car under conditions which would not compromise its performance. After all, the magazines are just third parties testing the cars for numbers to put in an article. The measurements may be somewhat scientific, but their end goal isn't the pursuit of the truth as it is in true science. Their goal is to sell copies of their magazine, and that takes priority over making sure they identify the truth.

Also, 2 carrera gt press cars have been wrecked, one totalled.

While agreeing with what was mentioned above, I would also add that I find it frustrating and unprofessional for the magazines to promote poorly defined results. One of the worst articles I have seen in recent times is by Road & Track on the Enzo. I do like the Enzo very much, but the author compared it, obviously, to the McLaren F1. His reference material and speed data were horribly shy of the true capability of the McLaren. His other references of facts comparing the two were so bad that I would question that the author ever even looked up some simple specs on the internet or from their own data bases. It was quite clear that his motive was to show the Ferrari on top. That he did.

In all truth, I don't mind which one is faster. I will still love both, but I find it more entertaining that the battle be won on the tarmac and not the biased opinion of a ego-driven journalist.

I step down from the soap box. :)

BTW was the Enzo used a customer car or a Ferrari "press car"? I'm asking cos here in europe Ferrari are refusing to provide a car for independant testing, offering magazines only the chance to sample the car on Ferrari's own test track. Therefore alot of the mags are siding with the McLaren F1, either because they truely believe it is better or because their trying to provoke Ferrari into giving them a car for testing. I hope somebody reliable, like autocar, can get hold of one and put this thing to rest.

The Road & Track article on the Enzo (July, 2003) used a customer car owned by Richard Losee.

I completely understand manufacturers not wanting to lend cars for the very reason of the abuse the cars sustain is staggering. I did not know that there were 2 Porsche GTs wrecked. Any pictures that perhaps have leaked??

I don't understand Manufacturers not wanting to lend cars to magazines. Thay have all the resources to maintain the car(s) and get some promotion. I don't understnad customers lending their cars for tests as they must get thrashed and no one wants their shiny new supercar to get ripped to pieces by a bunch of motoring hacks.

liability? one less car if it crashes, especially if its a limited production run

Yes, two Carrera GTs have been wrecked. One other has a blown engine , a fourth has acquired a metallic noise, and a fifth has a yet to be determined wiring problem. That has left only one or two for the rest of us to sample. Porsche is rethinking their policy on letting journalists drive the car. I expressed my opinion that since most of the production is already sold, and enough Carrera GTs have been pre-sold to a level of future profitability, why continue wrecking cars?