Not that concerned about the 5th gear review but more about the evo etc. How did that 458, even if it was a ringer find the pace to beat the mp4? I wonder if the first batch of cars Mclaren gave to the press were beaten up mules with worn out suspension, tires etc.. The car I drove had braking vibrations (signs of disc wear and tear) as well as that hydraulic leak in the back and some noises etc. I wonder if mclaren realised that they need to show their absolute best and now send new cars to the tests etc.? As a reminder the changes that evo reports are not performance oriented but more feeling oriented..
Am definitely more excited after the latest tests though..
The last thing I want to do is bring the tifosi defamation bunch flocking back to the site, but if you want to have an intelligent discussion about the testing, I can simply state what I would do (if I was a manufacturer intent on cheating).
First thing we have to remember is that both of these manufacturers are Formula One constructors with decades of experience in how to get modifications past FIA scrutineers. Sliding a few mods past journalists is certainly child's play, in comparison.
Of course, there would be literally hundreds of ways to modify a road car to extract better subjective and objective performance. Certainly, higher objective performance (acceleration, lap times, etc.) will come at a trade-off to at least one of the following:
1 - Cost (of parts and materials used)
2 - Durability / Reliability
3 - Usability (i.e. some of the subjective performance)
If I was said manufacturer, I would concentrate on the mods that compromised 1 & 2, but not 3. That is, the tweaks that would improve both objective and subjective performance, without regard to cost and with a different performance/durability ratio than a customer car.
For example, I would:
a) Use a brake rotor and pad combination that significantly decreased braking distances. These are likely to be of unacceptable durability for customer road use, but durable enough to last for a magazine test, even if the test lasted a few days. A subjective by-product of these brakes would be better initial bite, which would also score highly in the "feel" department. A customer car could not use the same compounds, as they would not last long enough. Perhaps, too, they would be made of a more expensive material.
b) Increase the RPM limit of the engine. Fairly self-explanatory, performance-wise, and with the same durability trade-off. A simple re-calibration of the tachometer to show 9000 RPM when it is really revving at 10,000 and nobody is the wiser. Subjective gains are the extra feeling of acceleration and the extra noise from a "hot motor". Who wouldn't get a buzz feeling from that?
c) Install stickier tires. Again, not obvious racing slicks or a compound so sticky that it will deteriorate over a few laps. But there is a huge amount of wiggle room between racing compounds and a street tire that is meant to last several thousand miles on the street. For a Formula One constructor, the calculation is academic. Subjectively, given similar characteristics at the limit, I'll take more grip every time, thank you.
Those are just a few, but we haven't even discussed the weight savings by substituting exotic alloy parts in the chassis and suspension. Here the trade-off is costs that are unacceptable for a consumer car, but certainly not an issue for a one-off press car that you take back to the factory after every comparison test. And, everybody loves the feeling of a light, nimble chassis, right?
Start adding those mods up and you could easily produce an identical-looking car that is several seconds faster over a lap and, more importantly, one that feels better and scores higher on subjective evaluations, too. Of that, I am absolutely certain.
All of that said and back to your point, I do think McLaren was rushed in getting cars ready for the mag deadlines and delivered prototypes that were inconsistent. As, I've said before, I don't think they even had the same provisional settings (as McLaren calls them) from car to car, for ESP calibration. Watching the various videos, I can see very different behaviour in oversteer conditions. Some of that could be explained by driver, I suppose, but to me these later cars seem much more progressive and precise approaching and exceeding the limit (i.e. much less snappy). And, yes, I think providing the inconsistent cars was a mistake, on McLaren's part. A decision likely weighed against the value of getting the press coverage, but nonetheless one that they would probably take back if given the choice (even though all was made right in the end by the Top Gear showing).
