yes that is quite strange, but, apparently, the drivers were different. 720 has proved to be very quick even on slow tracks (e.g. Vairano).

It was a matter of tire choice. If I recall correctly Corsa for 720S but Trofeo for 650S

Always be suspicious when lap times are given but never shown. Same problem as original top gear. some lap times just seem too good to be true.
This is one of the only tracks were the Fors Gt outperforms 720s

Someone is a Lamborghini fanboy

What laptime was given but not shown? Senna time was shown.

I Meant you get the hotlap time, but you dont see the onboard footage OF the hotlap. Back on top gear there are a lot of cars with suspiciously slow/fast times. For example the old 12c being 3 seconds faster than a 458 despite being slower at many other venues.

bbc show with a bbc car, obvious enough ?

one thing i miss about tg is jeremy going after the vw 911 :)

The trio still have an english Bias i think even if they arent part of BBC. I dont doubt that the Senna is 3.9 seconds faster than the Performante tho. That gap will only increase on a faster circuit like silverstone or spa.

The mclaren test track is exactly top gears old track. Of course it was going to be faster there. It was tuned specifically on that track.

Come on saxy you must admit something is fishy about that mclaren time. Either it underperformed at all other venues or it was too fast at Top gear. Even The Grand tour admitted they used aggressive tyres on the 650s! I wouldnt be surprised if the 12c IS faster than 458. But that margin is... too much.

Not really. It’s light, it’s got sticky tires and huge aero. Down the “isn’t” straight, it will be sweeping through at much higher speeds than any of the other cars. That alone could be worth a couple seconds already. Add the insane braking ability and that’s about it.

if i am not mistaken, senna's tyres are the same as performante's:
trofeos r. aero in such a slow track is not much relevant, if anything, 4wd could be more useful than aerodynamics there, unless the aero car weighs less than like 800-900kgs. i have no figures comparing braking of senna and performante. i think the difference between senna and performante could be 3 secs/minute in a very fast track, with several high-speed corner combinations, but not on a such a slow track. it just is totally unrealistic.

3.5 seconds per lap isnt that unreasonable. Consider the mclaren is a good 200+ kg lighter than the perf. Boatloads more power and torque. And the brakes are known to be by far the best brakes on the market, almost racecar like.
Even if we assume the performante can match the senna for slow/fast corner speeds (which i doubt considering weight difference) the acceleration and braking power will completely outclass the lamborghini.

Maybe the difference is lesser when a journalist laps the car, since 4wd is easier for lesser drivers, but this is a race car driver. Senna will be probs 5-6 seconds faster on spa or silverstone.

"3.5 seconds per lap isnt that unreasonable"
per lap? which lap? i am normalizing to the difference per minute,
not per lap.

"Senna will be probs 5-6 seconds faster on spa or silverstone."
on spa yes, maybe even slightly more, but that is a 2.30min lap,
which is less than 2 secs per minute.

"Even if we assume the performante can match the senna for slow/fast corner speeds"
performante will most likely be slightly faster on slow (50-70kph) corners, since it is 4wd, but will be slower on fast (160+ kph) corners due to less downforce (none of these on this track).
in acceleration performante is not outclassed by senna up
200kph and loses 1.5 secs from 200-250 (hence much less than that in terms of track time). i doubt these speeds are even hit on this track.

Actually "an english Bias" is way better than german.
Don't know about you, but I am tired of hypocrisy.

The only laptime i find truly suspicious is the lap from the old 12c on top gear. Otherwise as i have stated i have no doubt the senna is that much faster than the performante. Their bias is mostly harmless