Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

A Hybrid Ferrari


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,264 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 March 2013 - 00:19

http://www.gizmag.co...tm_medium=email

780 hp internal combustion engine plus 161 hp electric motor. It is only a tiny toe in the hybrid pond but this is Ferrari's first hybrid production car. Perhaps "KERS production car" would be a better description.

Advertisement

#2 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,828 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 07 March 2013 - 10:57

http://www.gizmag.co...tm_medium=email

780 hp internal combustion engine plus 161 hp electric motor. It is only a tiny toe in the hybrid pond but this is Ferrari's first hybrid production car. Perhaps "KERS production car" would be a better description.

Enzo is screaming from wherever he is!!

#3 Superbar

Superbar
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 07 March 2013 - 11:55

Enzo is screaming from wherever he is!!


Jeremy Clarkson, is that you? :wave:

It's just technology, what's the big deal?

#4 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,479 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 March 2013 - 16:54

Enzo is screaming from wherever he is!!


Everyone is screaming where Enzo is, I expect.

#5 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,650 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 07 March 2013 - 18:03

Ha!

#6 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,479 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 07 March 2013 - 20:01

Bentley is doing a plug-in hybrid SUV. So there.

#7 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 March 2013 - 21:05

The KERS is gimmicky. Ditch it and the reduced weight would make it faster. F1 would have trown it out if they could opt for lower weight.

#8 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,828 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 08 March 2013 - 00:42

Jeremy Clarkson, is that you? :wave:

It's just technology, what's the big deal?

Mr Ferrari was not into anything except for performance, and a hybrid Ferrari would never have been even thought about. Though these days they are just upmarket? Fiats. In a market where everyone has to be seen to be ''green'' to be trendy.

Clarkson may often be a pratt but he is very often right on the money too. But not PC about it. I loved the Prius v V8 BMW stunt on the test track where the eco box used considerably more fuel. And proved itself to be a very poor motor car too.

#9 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,264 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 08 March 2013 - 01:01

Not sure of the magnitude of the performance downside (mass) of this KERS system but 161 extra HP sounds useful to me.

#10 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 March 2013 - 10:44

Not sure of the magnitude of the performance downside (mass) of this KERS system but 161 extra HP sounds useful to me.



Do you agree on the claim that F1 would ditch it if they could go lower in weight even without the aero benefits?

#11 Superbar

Superbar
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 08 March 2013 - 15:13

Mr Ferrari was not into anything except for performance, and a hybrid Ferrari would never have been even thought about. Though these days they are just upmarket? Fiats. In a market where everyone has to be seen to be ''green'' to be trendy.


Saying anything about the thoughts of Mr Ferrari on this subject can surely only be speculation, but I agree that most likely if he was still alive he would focus on the performance. Or lack of it, as is the argument that MatsNorway is trying to make. It seems to me though that it's mostly subjective nonsense that has very little to do with the actual car. I'd be surprised if the LaFerrari is not seriously faster than the Enzo.

Clarkson may often be a pratt but he is very often right on the money too. But not PC about it. I loved the Prius v V8 BMW stunt on the test track where the eco box used considerably more fuel. And proved itself to be a very poor motor car too.


"Stunt" is a good word to describe it. Top Gear is an entertainent show and has very little to do with objective journalism. The whole point of the show is to be subjective. They make no secret that they hate the Prius and actually well done to them to manage to find a situation where another car is more efficient.

Hybrids in general and especially the Prius seem to be a red flag for many "car lovers". I wondered why that is, because objectivly the Prius is such a typical Toyota. Nice, but boring. It just happens to have some technology in it that gives it a better MPG than a conventional car in majority of situations. Why is it such a target? The best answer I could come up with is an analogy to vegetarism. Though it can be said to be just a personal choice, it is seen as a moral choice by many. This creates dissonance in the minds of people who don't share the same views on what is morally right.

#12 crooky369

crooky369
  • Member

  • 135 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 March 2013 - 15:47

Hybrids in general and especially the Prius seem to be a red flag for many "car lovers". I wondered why that is, because objectivly the Prius is such a typical Toyota. Nice, but boring. It just happens to have some technology in it that gives it a better MPG than a conventional car in majority of situations. Why is it such a target? The best answer I could come up with is an analogy to vegetarism. Though it can be said to be just a personal choice, it is seen as a moral choice by many. This creates dissonance in the minds of people who don't share the same views on what is morally right.


Because better MPG isn't a good enough excuse when it's ugly and overpriced compared to an equivalent MPG diesel. It's interesting technology no doubt but because its new, but doesn't offer any considerable benefit compared to a normal car I think a lot of people don't get the point of them.



#13 carlt

carlt
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 08 March 2013 - 16:49

Saying anything about the thoughts of Mr Ferrari on this subject can surely only be speculation, but I agree that most likely if he was still alive he would focus on the performance. Or lack of it, as is the argument that MatsNorway is trying to make. It seems to me though that it's mostly subjective nonsense that has very little to do with the actual car. I'd be surprised if the LaFerrari is not seriously faster than the Enzo.



"Stunt" is a good word to describe it. Top Gear is an entertainent show and has very little to do with objective journalism. The whole point of the show is to be subjective. They make no secret that they hate the Prius and actually well done to them to manage to find a situation where another car is more efficient.

Hybrids in general and especially the Prius seem to be a red flag for many "car lovers". I wondered why that is, because objectivly the Prius is such a typical Toyota. Nice, but boring. It just happens to have some technology in it that gives it a better MPG than a conventional car in majority of situations. Why is it such a target? The best answer I could come up with is an analogy to vegetarism. Though it can be said to be just a personal choice, it is seen as a moral choice by many. This creates dissonance in the minds of people who don't share the same views on what is morally right.


Ignorance and fear often breed hatred

#14 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 March 2013 - 17:19

In the suburbs and the cities is where the Prius trives. Its a good car if you use its spesifications as intended.

When it comes to Clarkson and top gear they might not do heavy duty research or present anything serious, but they are showing that a guy like me should buy a M3 over a Prius basically regardless. A M3 will never fall that much in value too.
Buying a M3 is like buying a classic. It will substain a certain value regardless. im not sure what the first M3 went for from the dealer in Norway but even today its going for 26000-35 000$

Mr Enzo seemed to be all about performance when he did the F40. Even the paint was at a minimum. I doubt he would have gone Hybrid with that state of mind. BUT and that is important. People chance and was he alive today he might have considered the enviroment to be of importance. AND if it was a mix he would have perhaps concluded that lightweight to be the best compromise. So a turbo engine with a lightweight tub would probably be hes choice if he wanted a combination of both.
At least not a huge V12 at.. 6 litre?

#15 Superbar

Superbar
  • Member

  • 404 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 09 March 2013 - 00:31

When it comes to Clarkson and top gear they might not do heavy duty research or present anything serious, but they are showing that a guy like me should buy a M3 over a Prius basically regardless.


Yeah, but then you'd have to be kind of stupid to not figure that out by yourself, wouldn't you?

Anyway, this thread is about the hybrid Ferrari LaFerrari. Silly name on a gorgeous car. Check out the video in the link, if you haven't already. The only thing it has in common with a Prius is that hybrid thingy that seems to upset some of you guys. Interestingly though, Ferrari is not the only ones using this technology for performance. Noticed the thread about the new McLaren P1? There's also the prototype Honda NSX. Porsche 917... and those Audi and Toyota hybrid LM's. Are all these respectable car companies out to lunch?

#16 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 09 March 2013 - 01:03

Yeah, but then you'd have to be kind of stupid to not figure that out by yourself, wouldn't you?

Anyway, this thread is about the hybrid Ferrari LaFerrari. Silly name on a gorgeous car. Check out the video in the link, if you haven't already. The only thing it has in common with a Prius is that hybrid thingy that seems to upset some of you guys. Interestingly though, Ferrari is not the only ones using this technology for performance. Noticed the thread about the new McLaren P1? There's also the prototype Honda NSX. Porsche 917... and those Audi and Toyota hybrid LM's. Are all these respectable car companies out to lunch?


KERS systems makes sense in endurance racing, where fuel economy is important. Even so, they don't use batteries because of the weight penalties.

The P1 and La Ferrari are not endurance racers, so their use of batteries has nothing to do with performance. The fastest lap around a track type performance anyway.



#17 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,828 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 09 March 2013 - 01:40

In the suburbs and the cities is where the Prius trives. Its a good car if you use its spesifications as intended.

When it comes to Clarkson and top gear they might not do heavy duty research or present anything serious, but they are showing that a guy like me should buy a M3 over a Prius basically regardless. A M3 will never fall that much in value too.
Buying a M3 is like buying a classic. It will substain a certain value regardless. im not sure what the first M3 went for from the dealer in Norway but even today its going for 26000-35 000$

Mr Enzo seemed to be all about performance when he did the F40. Even the paint was at a minimum. I doubt he would have gone Hybrid with that state of mind. BUT and that is important. People chance and was he alive today he might have considered the enviroment to be of importance. AND if it was a mix he would have perhaps concluded that lightweight to be the best compromise. So a turbo engine with a lightweight tub would probably be hes choice if he wanted a combination of both.
At least not a huge V12 at.. 6 litre?

Buy a bowls hat and drivr really slowly. Or a tree huggerthat thinks it is green. Really it is about as green as a Chinese coal fired power station.
An underpowered overweight 'green' enviro car.
Top Gear deserve acclaim every time they slam it, maybe they should drop pianos on them instead of Marinas!

#18 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 09 March 2013 - 12:22

:up:

Buy a bowls hat and drivr really slowly. Or a tree huggerthat thinks it is green. Really it is about as green as a Chinese coal fired power station.
An underpowered overweight 'green' enviro car.
Top Gear deserve acclaim every time they slam it, maybe they should drop pianos on them instead of Marinas!

Couldn't have said it better.

#19 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,731 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 09 March 2013 - 13:11

Manufacturers are investing into the future production of millions of electric cars, on one hand, and hybrids on the other, such as the Toyota Prius hybrid car first sold in 1997, and by October 2011 reaching 4.6M, 2M of them in Japan, cutting 30M tons of CO2 and saving 11M liters of gas, or 69182 barrels in that period.

There is a long way to go still, as the daily consumption of the US is 10 million barrels of oil per day for motorcars, or 40 million barrels worldwide. Hybrid technology is a method of improving fuel efficiency mainly through the recuperation of braking energy, worth it to eke out our energy needs with less pollution, but not a game changer.

Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume or mass. It therefore has units of energy per length cubed or energy per mass. Gasoline has an energy density of about 45 megajoules per kilogram (MJ/kg). As an internal combustion engine transforms roughly 33% of that into power at the wheels, anything that improves it is a gain. The best so far that hybrids garner is in region of 10%, so a net gain of 3% of the total by using kinetic energy recuperation.

In the real world, the natural laws of physics, installed capacity and free market economics drive the vast majority of the world's cars and trucks use of reciprocating internal combustion engines burning hydrocarbon fuels, rather than chemical batteries and electric motors because of the superior cost/performance ratio that hydrocarbon fuels currently provide, and this situation will likely remain true for at least another 20 or 30 years. The need for an alternate power source is a environment driven political need.

The technological boost of reluctance motors and new battery types will improve this ratio, but let us be frank about it, any use in motor racing will be rules driven, much as diesel and hybrids are today in endurance racing. It provides manufacturers an excuse to go racing to reap public perception kudos and keeps teams in business, and might just provide the drive to improve the technology rapidly.

And there is a fundamental problem with electric engines, as electricity is not an energy source, it is a means of transmitting (or storing) energy. Electrical town cars shift the pollution generated upstream, outside towns, and induction powered cars without batteries can be a coming technology, possibly showcased in an inductive track, cheaper to implement than redoing the road network, a craft know since 1894, when Nikola Tesla demonstrated resonant inductive coupling also known as "electro-dynamic induction".

Generating electricity can come from a plethora of sources, hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, geothermal and not excluding hydrocarbon fuels. Maybe hydrogen powered cars will be the future, be it fuel-cell technology or internal combustion, as probably in-car storage challenge for hydrogen will be solved way before we see electric cars with a useful range.

Hybrids eke out the economy, but as seen above there is a lot of work to do. Do not confuse a particular model of car with the concept. One is hard pressed to find a bigger petrol-head than oneself, but the known car paradigm from last century is not viable in todays demographic picture. Live with it.


Advertisement

#20 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,264 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 09 March 2013 - 23:08

:up:

#21 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 March 2013 - 12:05

RDV, agree with all that. But IMO there is a very simple thing that can be done to drastically change the HC consumption for personal transportation that is blatantly ignored: Make the damn things smaller and lighter. The Corolla, which I guess is the top seller or close to it, has jumped a size in the past 10 years or so, with it's weight jumping from 1095Kg to 1410Kg.



#22 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 10 March 2013 - 12:29

Yea. I remember a old commerical add from a paper on a mini it used 0.5-0.6L pr 10km

I bet the new mini uses more than that. And the first gen Honda Civic.. it hit the scales at 700kg i believe. probably half of what it is now.

There where no aluminium engine blocks etc. back then.

Edited by MatsNorway, 10 March 2013 - 12:31.


#23 RDV

RDV
  • Member

  • 6,731 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 10 March 2013 - 14:45

saudoso- Make the damn things smaller and lighter.

Thats been my mantra for decades...the thought of using a 1350 kg lump of metal to lug my 75kgs around is offensive as an engineer. Look at a 350kg car with 50hp and you can have decent power to weight ratio, zippy performance and range. Couple of things about it, you have to share road space with mums carting their obnoxious brats in a Toyota Land Cruiser...you lose, as mass will always win out when there is a conflict about road-space. I ran Golfs from the Golf 1 GTI, eventually gave up on them @ Golf 4 as it put on weight and lost performance...

If you need more capacity for people, have a people carrier. The sad thing about the old paradigm is that statistically you use your car for less than 10% of the time. The rest of the time it is using real estate by being parked. In urban agglomerations rapid transit is a logical way of travelling, but not much of a bird-puller. In fact elevators are a extremely logical way of transport for a city, and probably carry more people than anything else.

Had a load of fun at Le Mans this year, was playing around with a racing car that goes exactly in that direction, light weight, low consumption and as fast as the 900kg big iron, using half the fuel. More interesting things coming up in 2014, at garage 56 again, look out for more of the same.

Engineering can do great things, when not tied to marketing and making a big profit on shifting metal by appealing to peoples image problems. Vehicles are here to be used as transport, sometimes to entertain us by appealing to adrenaline jolts. But bottom line is that cars are an sociological phenomenon, not a transport one.

#24 saudoso

saudoso
  • Member

  • 4,632 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 10 March 2013 - 15:11

...the thought of using a 1350 kg lump of metal to lug my 75kgs around is offensive as an engineer...

I have typed pretty much the same around here before. But this won't change if left to anything short of very high taxing.

#25 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,650 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 10 March 2013 - 17:55

There are two advantages to electric cars that don't get the billing they deserve. As RDV pointed out, the electricity has at least the possibility of being non-hydrocarbon / non-nuke, reducing the total pollution in the chain. The 2nd is the ability to refuel at home or anywhere else you're parked for a decent length of time. As a city / short-hop vehicle, electric cars make a tremendous amount of sense.


#26 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 2,566 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 10 March 2013 - 18:38

When did Enzo care what FIAT was doing to the road cars?

#27 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 10 March 2013 - 23:32

The KERS is gimmicky. Ditch it and the reduced weight would make it faster. F1 would have trown it out if they could opt for lower weight.



Ferrari's claim is that the KERS system allowed them to focus more on top end performance in the V-12, rather than getting a more even spread over the rev range. That would suggest that the KERS will be mainly used for accelerating the car from low speeds.

#28 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 5,828 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 10 March 2013 - 23:50

Thats been my mantra for decades...the thought of using a 1350 kg lump of metal to lug my 75kgs around is offensive as an engineer. Look at a 350kg car with 50hp and you can have decent power to weight ratio, zippy performance and range. Couple of things about it, you have to share road space with mums carting their obnoxious brats in a Toyota Land Cruiser...you lose, as mass will always win out when there is a conflict about road-space. I ran Golfs from the Golf 1 GTI, eventually gave up on them @ Golf 4 as it put on weight and lost performance...

If you need more capacity for people, have a people carrier. The sad thing about the old paradigm is that statistically you use your car for less than 10% of the time. The rest of the time it is using real estate by being parked. In urban agglomerations rapid transit is a logical way of travelling, but not much of a bird-puller. In fact elevators are a extremely logical way of transport for a city, and probably carry more people than anything else.

Had a load of fun at Le Mans this year, was playing around with a racing car that goes exactly in that direction, light weight, low consumption and as fast as the 900kg big iron, using half the fuel. More interesting things coming up in 2014, at garage 56 again, look out for more of the same.

Engineering can do great things, when not tied to marketing and making a big profit on shifting metal by appealing to peoples image problems. Vehicles are here to be used as transport, sometimes to entertain us by appealing to adrenaline jolts. But bottom line is that cars are an sociological phenomenon, not a transport one.

The problem with a 350 kilo car is that in most markets it will never pass the design rules. Impact resistance, air bags, all the electronics supposedly desired weigh 350 kilo alone,., yet alone the car!
As for people movers, most are dangerous, high, low powered, underbraked boxes. A Landcruiser too is some of the above, but strong pactical, can go places, good on the highway,, and the byway. Has a 3.5 tonne towing capacity and has more interior room than a box on wheels. The box on wheels may just suffice in the metro area but is an accident waiting to happen on the highway. That does include Taragos, which are themselves quite large,, and bloody front drive!!
As a car dealer I never sold the things, dont need the hassle. The couple that I was forced to trade it seemed were desirable to catholics. eg no family planning and no money! As are 7/8 seat Falcon wagons, there the buyers want LPG. The third row of seats are in the cargo area making it near impossible to install the gas tank.
I am quite wary on 4wds too, though more for the warranty costs than the vehicles.

#29 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 16:49

Ferrari's claim is that the KERS system allowed them to focus more on top end performance in the V-12, rather than getting a more even spread over the rev range. That would suggest that the KERS will be mainly used for accelerating the car from low speeds.


Interesting. As a result we get more purebred engines. (purebreeded?) i can like that..

#30 JimboJones

JimboJones
  • Member

  • 80 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 11 March 2013 - 21:29

Ferrari's claim is that the KERS system allowed them to focus more on top end performance in the V-12, rather than getting a more even spread over the rev range. That would suggest that the KERS will be mainly used for accelerating the car from low speeds.


or just filling in the shape of the torque curve to produce a perfectly predictable response. In theory, they could improve the drivability this way, but how can they say they've focused on the top end performance when it only has 800bhp, you can't have it both ways...

My McLaren post applies...
http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=6158781

#31 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 11 March 2013 - 21:50

Yea it is still a bit gimmicky, but it makes more sense now.

#32 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 11 March 2013 - 21:58

or just filling in the shape of the torque curve to produce a perfectly predictable response. In theory, they could improve the drivability this way, but how can they say they've focused on the top end performance when it only has 800bhp, you can't have it both ways...

My McLaren post applies...
http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=6158781



"Only has 800hp"?

From a naturally aspirated 6.3l V12....

#33 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,507 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 12 March 2013 - 00:18

The political problem is how do we reboot the entire transport sytem so that (say) 400kg two seaters are acceptably safe, given the number of 15 year old 1.5 ton 170 hp cars that currently exist and are piloted by our major accident statistic, the 18-25 yo male? The entrenched opposition to the introduction of those devices is enormous, and to be honest, the fuel economy advantage isn't that great - you get much more benefit by moving commuters from 15 mpg trucks into 40 mpg cars, than from moving someone from a 50 mpg Prius into a 100 or 200 mpg hypercar. So to some extent looking at the extreme solution is really a bit over the top.




#34 JimboJones

JimboJones
  • Member

  • 80 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 12 March 2013 - 00:22

"Only has 800hp"?

From a naturally aspirated 6.3l V12....


so turbocharge it, why ran an N/A V12 when it isn't the best for outright performance... because they want the sound, and the technology.
That's the point, it's about selling cars, not making the fastest car.

#35 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,264 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:18

These cars are in the "silly horsepower numbers" category anyway. Ferrari claim 0-200 km/hr in 7 seconds. What part of that can use 1000 hp? Perhaps above 150 km/hr? So how often will the average LaFerrari be churning out max neddies?

#36 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:29

These cars are in the "silly horsepower numbers" category anyway. Ferrari claim 0-200 km/hr in 7 seconds. What part of that can use 1000 hp? Perhaps above 150 km/hr? So how often will the average LaFerrari be churning out max neddies?


I doubt that the electric motor will be used much, if at all, when the motor is making its 800hp. The electric motor will be used most at low speed acceleration, I would guess.

#37 Wuzak

Wuzak
  • Member

  • 3,489 posts
  • Joined: September 00

Posted 12 March 2013 - 01:30

so turbocharge it, why ran an N/A V12 when it isn't the best for outright performance... because they want the sound, and the technology.
That's the point, it's about selling cars, not making the fastest car.


Yes, it is about selling cars.

As is the Koenigsegg 1200hp claim - more marketing than performance oriented (other than for top speed numbers).

I'd also be surprised if the LaFerrari wasn't faster around a track than the Koenigsegg 1200hp thing.

#38 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,056 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 13 March 2013 - 06:48

hmm.

The Laferrari weights in at 1300kg curb weight.
Koenigsegg agera R is at 1435kg

So Koenigsegg needs to make a new Carbonfiber tub.. and get rid of that silly Targa roof.

The hypercar segment is getting crowded. Luxury stuff like targa roof will make you look silly or outdated when you are getting beaten by much "cheaper" cars with more effective designs.

Im still going with The koenigsegg over the Laferrari even around the top gear track who is small.

Every year we see better times. I wonder how much of it is tire development alone. How does a Mclaren F1 on fresh modern rubber i wonder.

Edited by MatsNorway, 13 March 2013 - 06:50.