anticipating with enthusiasm the launch of the P18
jkitz
F250 is just a code name, same as P18. The code name for the LaFerrari was F150. Incidentally, there has already been a lawsuit about this when Ford sued Ferrari over the name of their 2011 F1 car, which was also called F150.
We don't know yet what the new Ferrari car will be called, but don't worry, based on their history, it will be something much dumber than F250!
We don't know yet what the new Ferrari car will be called, but don't worry, based on their history, it will be something much dumber than F250!
I mean... It could be done. Maybe. The biggest hurdle would really be making the Judd engine last more than a few thousand km. From the box the Judd GV V10 has a rebuild interval of only 3000km. I am not sure how easy it would be to get it even to 50000km - which is what the AMG One engine is rated for (if that's even true). Getting it to pass emissions also wouldn't be the work of a moment, but that's probably doable, especially in a hybrid setup.
As for why it won't be done... yeah, just looking at the mess that is the AMG One - which would have been a much better car if it just had a road engine - is, I think, enough to answer all the questions. If even possible, it would be extremely expensive, so much so that developing a new engine from scratch would probably be the less painful option. Which Mclaren could do, they could go to Judd, or Cosworth, or Ricardo, and develop a new NA, high revving engine to pair up with their hybrid powertrain - just as you see Bugatti doing - but that would still be the harder and more complicated route compared to just getting another TT V8. Turbo engines are easier to pass emissions with, and also, perhaps even more importantly, more scalable. With an NA engine, if you are pushing the limit even with the initial iteration, it's very hard to further improve without big changes. You need to either increase displacement (which means different crank, rods, pistons, maybe even a different block if you are increasing bore), or you need to increase revs (which likely means different cams, valves, valve train gearing). On a turbo engine, you just need to increase boost (ok, I am simplifying a bit, but you get my point) - which you will be able to after the engine has run for a few years and you now have a lot more info on where it's safe to push for more. So a turbo engine will likely last you for many years over many generations of cars, while an NA engine won't, unless it's being continuously expensively upgraded.
Regardless, although I also wish Mclaren engines were a bit more exciting and less workhorse instruments, it's very unlikely that's gonna happen. Mclaren went with a turbocharged engine when all the rivals at the time (458, Gallardo, LFA) had high revving NA engines, and it would be a real shock if now they would suddenly be the first to switch back to NA (even if in the ultra luxury sphere that's becoming something of a minor trend now). Same as I don't expect them to ever offer a manual - even if in the hypercar market that's also becoming a trend.
Stop using me as your personal ChatGPT!
To make long story short, the main reason why W engines are not more widely used is that with two cylinder rows per bank, both the intake and the exhaust have to travel for a relatively long time to reach the cylinder. This means the intake air gets unnecessarily hotter, and the exhaust heats the cylinder head more, requiring more cooling for the engine. There is no reason using the W configuration unless there is a severe packaging problem that's otherwise unsolvable. Or if it's in a application where performance is not a crucial factor.
Not very surprising so far. 3075lb is exactly the same as the dry weight figure for the P1. And yeah, I agree, this very likely means no AWD. 1218PS with that weight means the engine alone is probably making at least 900PS.
That's P1 with prototype rear lights.
The rumors someone posted claimed the weight was 1395kg - the same as the dry weight of the P1. So it could weigh the same as the P1, which was about 1550kg in reality. Maybe even closer to 1500kg. <1400kg - same as 765LT - is something I don't see as realistic for a hybrid car with so much electric power (likely about 300PS), unless it's completely stripped. Well, if by some miracle they managed it, it would be an amazing achievement. Probably not, though.
The LaFerrari successor is getting released like a week after. In any case, there is never any window really where releasing the car will give you an advantage (or disadvantage). The development lead times are at least 4 years, so for anyone to react to your car it's gonna take at least that long.
Not on the street. Maybe lowish 9s if lucky. 1/4 miles are simply too dependent on initial traction. The fastest street time for a RWD production car is 9.6s by the 296 GTB. The Jesko Absolut, for example, only managed 9.7s during their 0-400-0 test, despite being, in theory, much faster. Just a matter of the surface and the tires. Outside of prepped surface 8.5s is unreachable for a RWD car no matter the power.
Looks wise it's a slight improvement on the earlier concept, but it's still not amazing. There are some angles where it looks good (like in profile), but the front is just too busy and generic at the same time, and the car is too busy in general for some cohesive design to emerge. Too enslaved to aero performance.
As for the interior, I sort of like it actually. It's quite cozy! Less of a carbon crypt than the P1/Senna was. That said, it's not really a 2M interior, is it. Just a bunch of buttons/screens you find on many other Mclarens. The interior design game for hypercars has moved on, but Mclaren, again, don't really care beyond raw functionality.
Technically it's very much a P1 evolution. More power from the ICE, and a bit more e-power. That they were able to keep the same weight as P1 is good, but not exceptional, especially in light of them opting to use the smallest battery possible with next to zero electric range. 1000kg of downforce is impressive - or at least it would be if claimed downforce numbers could be relied on. It does seem a bit optimistic to me, but we will see. The lap times will tell the true story.
It's good to see that Mclaren finally opted for bigger tires - 265 front, 335 back. This should improve the mechanical grip, and it was probably also a necessity to support the extra downforce. And the car is getting the Trofeo RS tires - which have been proven to be even faster than Cup 2 Rs. But, in light of that, being only 3s faster than the Senna around the Nardo Handling circuit is not that impressive, considering the Senna was only using Trofeo Rs. So on equal tires the car might not be that much, if at all, faster than the Senna. Over longer track sessions it might even be slower on account of the battery being so small.
Overall it's a decent effort. The P1 and the holy trinity in general were all already very highly developed, and the industry is very highly developed in general, so getting big performance gains is getting harder and harder. The car is about what I expected, but even just getting there wouldn't have been that easy. If I were to have one criticism, it's that a bit too much has been sacrificed for performance, with both looks and practicality suffering (no luggage space), and it remains to be seen if the performance is amazing enough for that to be worth it.
Otherwise, I would like to see more of their new suspension before I comment on it. I am not sure if there is anything truly new or innovative about it, but it could be interesting.
As for the interior, I sort of like it actually. It's quite cozy! Less of a carbon crypt than the P1/Senna was. That said, it's not really a 2M interior, is it. Just a bunch of buttons/screens you find on many other Mclarens. The interior design game for hypercars has moved on, but Mclaren, again, don't really care beyond raw functionality.
Technically it's very much a P1 evolution. More power from the ICE, and a bit more e-power. That they were able to keep the same weight as P1 is good, but not exceptional, especially in light of them opting to use the smallest battery possible with next to zero electric range. 1000kg of downforce is impressive - or at least it would be if claimed downforce numbers could be relied on. It does seem a bit optimistic to me, but we will see. The lap times will tell the true story.
It's good to see that Mclaren finally opted for bigger tires - 265 front, 335 back. This should improve the mechanical grip, and it was probably also a necessity to support the extra downforce. And the car is getting the Trofeo RS tires - which have been proven to be even faster than Cup 2 Rs. But, in light of that, being only 3s faster than the Senna around the Nardo Handling circuit is not that impressive, considering the Senna was only using Trofeo Rs. So on equal tires the car might not be that much, if at all, faster than the Senna. Over longer track sessions it might even be slower on account of the battery being so small.
Overall it's a decent effort. The P1 and the holy trinity in general were all already very highly developed, and the industry is very highly developed in general, so getting big performance gains is getting harder and harder. The car is about what I expected, but even just getting there wouldn't have been that easy. If I were to have one criticism, it's that a bit too much has been sacrificed for performance, with both looks and practicality suffering (no luggage space), and it remains to be seen if the performance is amazing enough for that to be worth it.
Otherwise, I would like to see more of their new suspension before I comment on it. I am not sure if there is anything truly new or innovative about it, but it could be interesting.
Their press release really reads like it went through three separate departments, with each department having a separate mandate to promote the connection to F1 in light of them likely winning the constructor's championship this year. Needless to say, not a single bolt on the car is from F1, but whatever. I am sure the Ferrari press release for their new hypercar will be similarly affected, except switching half the F1 references to LMH.
The Nardo Handling Circuit is a 2m+ track, so you are actually looking at 1-2s on most tracks. The W1 should be much faster in a straight line, so maybe on tracks with long straights the difference could be bigger (as Nardo is more of a flowing technical track). The new Trofeo RSs are so far only available for OEMs, I think, so yeah, you'll probably have to wait a bit.
Hot-V or not hot-V is all about packaging. 90 degree angle is wide enough for the turbos to fit, but there is no performance benefit either way. It's just that sometimes you want the intake on top, and sometimes you want the exhaust on top.
I snapped some frames from Mclaren's video, that are showcasing some additional details that they don't show in photos.
The front subframe with the inboard suspension, heave damper and 3D printed control arms and uprights:
![Image]()
The rear subframe with the z-bar and active drop-links:
![Image]()
The suspension is actually quite interesting. If I am seeing it right, Mclaren have - as with the Artura - abandoned the crosslinked damper system, or at least in the form they've used previously. Instead we get a conventional (?) anti-roll bar in the back and a heave damper in the front (which, I assume, doubles as an anti-roll bar, since I don't see any other way to control roll from this picture, unless some components are missing). In the back, the selective control is now accomplished by the active drop-links attached to the z-bar. This is actually quite novel and something that I haven't seen before, as the way it is installed it would actually function as a "pro-roll" bar, rather than anti. Which doesn't really make sense. So maybe the way they interlink the dampers now is not by connecting the main dampers, but by connecting the heave damper up front and the drop links in the back. Or maybe it's something completely different, hard to tell without more information.
What's a bit disappointing to see is that Mclaren are still using a big and bulky alu rear subframe like this. In the hypercar sphere, you would expect either a CF subframe, a semi-stressed engine, or both. Alu front subframe too. In that sense, the Mclaren F1, is still more advanced even 30 years later.
On the positive side, the W1 keeps both hydraulic steering and hydraulic braking, while almost everyone else has moved on to electric/electronic. They are also keeping with the idea of a limited slip diff and abandoning the open diff with active rear braking, same as on the Artura, which is probably what they'll be doing with other models going forward.
The front subframe with the inboard suspension, heave damper and 3D printed control arms and uprights:
The rear subframe with the z-bar and active drop-links:
The suspension is actually quite interesting. If I am seeing it right, Mclaren have - as with the Artura - abandoned the crosslinked damper system, or at least in the form they've used previously. Instead we get a conventional (?) anti-roll bar in the back and a heave damper in the front (which, I assume, doubles as an anti-roll bar, since I don't see any other way to control roll from this picture, unless some components are missing). In the back, the selective control is now accomplished by the active drop-links attached to the z-bar. This is actually quite novel and something that I haven't seen before, as the way it is installed it would actually function as a "pro-roll" bar, rather than anti. Which doesn't really make sense. So maybe the way they interlink the dampers now is not by connecting the main dampers, but by connecting the heave damper up front and the drop links in the back. Or maybe it's something completely different, hard to tell without more information.
What's a bit disappointing to see is that Mclaren are still using a big and bulky alu rear subframe like this. In the hypercar sphere, you would expect either a CF subframe, a semi-stressed engine, or both. Alu front subframe too. In that sense, the Mclaren F1, is still more advanced even 30 years later.
On the positive side, the W1 keeps both hydraulic steering and hydraulic braking, while almost everyone else has moved on to electric/electronic. They are also keeping with the idea of a limited slip diff and abandoning the open diff with active rear braking, same as on the Artura, which is probably what they'll be doing with other models going forward.
Well, for it to function as an anti-roll bar, you want the wheels moving in the same direction with respect to the road. So if one wheel goes up, you want to force the other wheel to go up as well. That way they stay level and the car stays level. That's what the anti-roll bar, which is usually U-shaped, accomplishes. But if you look at the Z-shaped bar they've put on this car, it forces the wheels to go in the opposite direction instead.
Yeah, but that's just accumulators for the normal dampers, since the dampers need to be short. That's just a packaging thing.
You mean the front push rods are too thin? I mean, I assume they calculated that. With the right geometry where they are never subjected to bending/buckling forces it should be fine even with that cross section.Something doesn't seem right here, that they would be putting ALL of the suspension support load via that spindly little uplink rod... I just can't make out where else the "coilovers/springs" would be "acting" upon the control arm(s) in order to take the load...
Yeah, it has dawned on me that I am probably overthinking things. There are no visible lines to the rear shocks, but they could easily just be missing from the model. They could be using the crosslinked dampers as normal, and then the front heave damper and the rear z-bar with active drop-links could be there solely for heave control. That would explain why they don't actually work as anti-roll bars at all.
One thing I still don't understand, though, is them talking about "torsion bars" at the front. I don't see any or see where they could attach to, and neither do I get what they would be for if anti-roll is accomplished by their cross-link damper system.
Since you guys seem to be interested in the minutia of cornering speeds and Gs, and since it's indeed quite easy to calculate, and in fact I already had, the W1 will (at 250km/h) corner at 1.938Gs, while the F80 will corner at 2.030Gs. This is assuming the kerb weight of 1550kg for the W1, 1700kg for the F80, 80kg of driver ballast, and 1.3 mu tires. It's also assuming 1000kg of downforce for the Ferrari, although in some promotional materials they actually claim 1050kg. In which case the cornering would be 2.067G.
Well, that's assuming that either of those downforce figures is true. Which they very often aren't. It's usually some idealized number from a CFD simulation, one that's assuming perfect conditions, while going straight (and not turning while cornering), and it's often a figure that's only achieved in braking with the wing in its most draggy position. We certainly won't see such high cornering numbers in reality. The Senna, to give an example, should be theoretically capable of cornering at 2.027G (so very similar), but in reality the best we've seen was about 1.7G sustained at Spa. The new GT3RS should be theoretically capable of about 1.84G... and, in fact, that's about what we've seen, so kudos to Porsche for being honest about their DF figures. Still, I think that either the W1 or the F80 would be pretty happy to get up to the 1.7-1.8G range.
In fact, it could even be lower despite the theoretically high DF figures. And that's because both cars are relatively heavy. There is something called the Tire Load Sensitivity, which basically tells you that a tire will experience a loss of friction coefficient (that's the mu value I mentioned) the more it's loaded. With the cars being so heavy already, there is much less overhead to add downforce before starting to experience a loss of mechanical grip. This is especially true for the F80, which is supposed to have 200kg of DF more, while also weighing at least 150kg more. So even before we talk about which car is more efficient or which one produces more DF in the real world, we have to consider that that DF might not be doing anything at all to help the cars corner faster. The F80 is using pretty wide tires 285/345, and they might have worked with Michelin and developed a special compound for the car, so that will help a bit, but it's still worth mentioning that in the case of the Valkyrie, the Cup 2 R Michelins (265/325) started to melt at a mere 1400+750+80 (2230kg) load. The W1 (265/335) is at 2430kg, so that's 200kg more on similarly sized tires. The F80 is at 2780/2830kg with only slightly larger tires. So, barring some amazing unexpected tire advancement, neither of the new cars will be really able to take advantage of the extra downforce - or the claims are significantly massaged to begin with.
Well, that's assuming that either of those downforce figures is true. Which they very often aren't. It's usually some idealized number from a CFD simulation, one that's assuming perfect conditions, while going straight (and not turning while cornering), and it's often a figure that's only achieved in braking with the wing in its most draggy position. We certainly won't see such high cornering numbers in reality. The Senna, to give an example, should be theoretically capable of cornering at 2.027G (so very similar), but in reality the best we've seen was about 1.7G sustained at Spa. The new GT3RS should be theoretically capable of about 1.84G... and, in fact, that's about what we've seen, so kudos to Porsche for being honest about their DF figures. Still, I think that either the W1 or the F80 would be pretty happy to get up to the 1.7-1.8G range.
In fact, it could even be lower despite the theoretically high DF figures. And that's because both cars are relatively heavy. There is something called the Tire Load Sensitivity, which basically tells you that a tire will experience a loss of friction coefficient (that's the mu value I mentioned) the more it's loaded. With the cars being so heavy already, there is much less overhead to add downforce before starting to experience a loss of mechanical grip. This is especially true for the F80, which is supposed to have 200kg of DF more, while also weighing at least 150kg more. So even before we talk about which car is more efficient or which one produces more DF in the real world, we have to consider that that DF might not be doing anything at all to help the cars corner faster. The F80 is using pretty wide tires 285/345, and they might have worked with Michelin and developed a special compound for the car, so that will help a bit, but it's still worth mentioning that in the case of the Valkyrie, the Cup 2 R Michelins (265/325) started to melt at a mere 1400+750+80 (2230kg) load. The W1 (265/335) is at 2430kg, so that's 200kg more on similarly sized tires. The F80 is at 2780/2830kg with only slightly larger tires. So, barring some amazing unexpected tire advancement, neither of the new cars will be really able to take advantage of the extra downforce - or the claims are significantly massaged to begin with.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
