#ask trio 516 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

adriansmithcarslove · 4 years

Text

All That Glitters: 2020 McLaren 720S Spider vs. 2020 Mercedes-AMG GT R Roadster vs. 2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet

The numbers are dazzling, if not staggering:

$825,110 worth of open-air supercars.

1,927 horsepower.

1,674 lb-ft of torque.

The shapes of these machines, especially in these colors, make children jump and squeal with joy—while most adults wish they weren’t quite so self-conscious so that they could do the same.

Because you’re wondering, oh yes, some grownups act like kids around these things (yours truly first and foremost). This trio truly is a collection of rare, exotic beasts. Each one represents a topless version of its respective companies’ near-pinnacle performance car. I say “near” because McLaren just unveiled the 765LT, Mercedes-AMG makes the GT R Pro, and Porsche, well, you just know there will soon be a GT2 RS that makes this car seem like a snail. Plus, all three manufacturers are in the hypercar business, to varying degrees (P1, Senna, Project One, Carrera GT).

The question, then, is, “Why?” Why would an automaker take a perfectly good supercar and hamstring it by removing rigidity and adding weight? That’s the question you’d ask before you’d spent a few days driving this shimmering trio around some of Southern California’s greatest roads. After doing so, the only question is, “Why the hell not?”

I’m going to asterisk this comparison test at this point. First of all, we still can’t test cars, so I don’t have any objective numbers to point you to. Sorry. Also, yes, we should have had the McLaren 600LT Spider instead of the 720S Spider, as the former’s base price of $259,000 is much more in line with the other two than the latter’s starting price of (yikes) $317,500. Don’t even think about the as-tested price of (gulp) $372,750. However, there wasn’t a 600LT Spider available. So we took one for the team and grabbed the only convertible Macca had on offer, the 720S Spider. The sacrifices we all make, right?

I’d also like to toss out a caveat for the AMG GT R Roadster. It’s old. Say huh? True, the GT R Roadster is only about a year old. I’m talking about the platform itself, going back to 2014. However, that’s only the current generation. The C190/R190 (C190 is Mercedes geek-speak for the GT Coupe, R190 means GT Roadster) is actually a modified version of the C197/R197 Gullwing, aka the SLS AMG. That chassis goes back to 2009, and the GT body-in-white is essentially the same structure but with 50mm lopped out of the wheelbase.

I’m mentioning these caveats because the Porsche 992 Turbo S is brand-spanking-new. We know that AMG will be introducing an all-new GT in the not so distant future. Please don’t read this as me making excuses for the AMG, but more like when the SLS AMG was developed, 19-inch R-compound tires were cutting edge. The Porsche showed up on 21s. The persistence of time and all that.

Intriguingly, these three roadsters do not follow a set template. The AMG is front-engine, the McLaren has a mid-mounted engine, and the 911’s mill lives behind the rear wheels.

The GT R Roadster uses a racy, modified version of AMG’s 4.0-liter twin-turbo V-8, called M178. You can think of it as a dry-sump version of the more ubiquitous M177, which is used in every other AMG with a V-8, including, confusingly, the GT 63. Its 577 hp and 516 lb-ft of torque flow down a carbon-fiber driveshaft to a seven-speed dual-clutch transaxle.

The 720S also uses a dry-sumped 4.0-liter twin-turbo V-8 that makes 710 hp and 568 lb-ft of torque, though there’s one major difference—the McLaren uses a flat-plane crankshaft. Flat-plane V-8s rev quicker, are typically lighter, and make turbocharging (a bit) easier. However, they vibrate much more (there’s no inherent secondary balance like a cross-plane V-8) and tend to be more brittle. Great for race cars, problematic elsewhere. Like the AMG, the McLaren employs a seven-speed dual-clutch transaxle.

The Turbo S is different still, with its rear-mounted 3.8-liter twin-turbo flat-six producing 640 hp and 590 lb-ft of torque. Like the other two, the Porsche has a dual-clutch transaxle for a transmission (a transaxle is just a combination of a transmission and a differential where driven axles exit the case, as opposed to forces being sent down a driveshaft to a differential), with eight forward gears instead of seven like the other two entrants. The Porsche drives all four wheels, whereas the others are both RWD. The AMG and the Porsche have all-wheel steering, and all the cars have carbon-ceramic brake rotors, but only the Porsche has four seats, even if two of them don’t actually work.

As for performance, all are lunatic-quick. Let’s look at comparables, as you real estate types love to say. The McLaren 720S coupe hits 60 mph in 2.5 seconds and runs out the back of the quarter mile in a startling 10.1 seconds at a blazing 141.5 mph. That last one is 0.1 second off the 887-hp Porsche 918 Spyder. Again, the 720S is rear-wheel drive.

The 991.2—meaning the previous-generation 911 that this one replaces—Porsche 911 Turbo S coupe also hit 60 mph in 2.5 seconds before flying through the quarter mile in 10.5 seconds with a trap speed of 131.8 mph. (We never tested a 991.1 or 991.2 Turbo S Cabriolet.) The nearly 10-mph difference in trap speeds means the McLaren is making a lot more juice than that old 580-hp Porsche. As Top Gear America co-host Jethro Bovingdon says, “All McLarens make 800 horsepower.” The McLaren we tested also weighed 390 pounds less than the porker Porsche, 3,167 vs. 3,557 pounds.

As for the AMG GT R, the coupe version weighs 3,680 pounds, hits 60 mph in 3.4 seconds, and runs the quarter in 11.3 seconds at 129.0 mph.

The McLaren and Porsche are two of the quickest cars we’ve ever tested, but the 992 Turbo S will be quicker than the old one, and the Spider version of the 720S will be (a touch) slower.

Also, if the AMG GT R were up against nearly any other competitors, its numbers would appear stellar. Convertibles are usually heavier than their hardtop counterparts. By removing stiffness, you typically need to brace the chassis. Even with a super-stiff carbon-fiber tub car like McLaren’s, the folding roof bits add additional weight.

The Fashion Show

“I love, love, love the looks of it,” Miguel Cortina said in regard to the 720S Spider. He certainly has a point. It’s been more than three years since we first laid eyes on the 720S, and the looks have only improved. It’s the best-looking mid-engine design since the Lamborghini Huracán showed up in 2014. Head of McLaren design Robert Melville and his team pulled off the nearly impossible: The Spider might look even better with the top down. That never happens.

The GT R certainly loses something in roadster form, though I will say there are certain roofless angles that look fabulous. Especially in this outrageous ($9,900) metal-flaked yellow. Best rear end in the business? The answer remains yes. The 911 Turbo S definitely looks worse as a convertible and worse still with the roof stowed, especially in this odd, dull orange. There’s just a pudginess to it that’s absent from the hardtop. Solution? Hey, Porsche, Targa Turbo! Do it.

Inside the cars, the tide turns. “I know I’m going to get hate mail,” Cortina said, “but the McLaren’s interior could be better.” I like the inside of the 720S just fine, but I know what he means. There’s a homebrewed feel to the Brit that’s simply absent from the Germans’ cabins. True, there’s a spaceship vibe happening—a spaceship made out of wetsuits.

The Porsche, meanwhile, is all business. Well, all that red leather makes it a high-end brothel, but that’s still a business. The controls are minimal and intuitive, and for the first time in Porsche history, the cupholder works about two-thirds of the time.

That said, the AMG steals the interior show. As Miguel said, “The interior is really polished—elegant design, fancy air vents, and a lot of cubbies to hold your belongings.” However, the AMG had the worst seats—narrow, with thin padding. This is a trait common to front-engine cars that have transmissions (or in this case, torque tubes) bisecting the cabin. Side-to-side space is at a premium, and the seats pay the price by shrinking. Think of the last couple generations of Corvette or Dodge Viper, RIP. The Porsche had the best seats of the test.

Behind the Wheel

Roof or no roof, all three of these machines are supercars. However, because we’re unable to test or lap cars, we don’t have empirical numbers to guide our anecdotal hands, guts, and brains. As such, ranking these three comes down to good, old-fashioned feelings—which, when you’re deciding between cars of this ilk, is what it really comes down to anyway.

“I got goosebumps as I was driving up the mountain,” Cortina said of the 720S Spider. “This thing is fast—very fast.” Do we call Miguel Captain Obvious? Sometimes.

Senior editor Scott Evans added: “We used to call the 911 Turbo S ‘weaponized speed,’ but McLaren has usurped that title. There’s so much motor in this thing. Everything else is clouded out of your brain.”

As for my own notes: “Have I ever driven up Angeles Crest quicker? Doubtful. It does 100 mph in third gear. I should clarify that it calmly does the hundo in third.” It’s such a bizarre/unique experience, the ability to go that quick with that much control.

You find yourself serenely thinking, “The glass panel above my head starts vibrating at 100 mph, stops at 106 mph, but then resumes shaking with slightly more gusto at 108 mph. I’ll have to investigate. But after lunch.” This car is just not normal. There are no straights with this car; you’re constantly arriving at corners. As I’ve long said, alien technology for the street.

Although perhaps not a spaceship from another world, the AMG Roadster is no slouch. Every time I looked, I was bordering 90 mph. In this company, the car might seem a bit outgunned on paper, but seat of the pants, the power felt competitive. Keeping up with the other two was neither a problem nor an issue. This impression was bolstered by the fact that the GT R Roadster is by far best-sounding of the trio.

The Porsche’s sport exhaust manages to change the sound from two industrial-strength hair dryers to four, but as Evans pointed out, “Even with the exhaust closed, it’s got more of that classic angry sewing machine chatter than it’s had in years.” Sure, but the AMG crushes it, sonically speaking. Puts a hurt on the McLaren, too.

Even with a flat-plane crank, the McLaren’s twin turbos muffle the engine. I’ve been saying this for years, but only AMG seems to be able to make turbocharged motors sound mean and spiteful. With the roof lowered, the engine’s roar and the exhaust’s crackle are that much better. Why are you buying a convertible over a coupe in the first place? I’d argue for the visceral experience. The AMG is quite dramatic. That said, the 7,000-rpm redline is too low. Please raise it to at least 8,000 rpm, thank you.

As for the 992 Turbo S, this is something new. Something totally different. “This is not the 911 Turbo I remember,” Evans said. “That was a Grand Touring car but not a Porsche GT in the Weissach sense of the term. This Turbo S is a Porsche GT car. It’s just missing the number.”

Hard to argue, especially when said Turbo S is equipped with the PASM Sport suspension that was developed by Porsche’s racing division in Weissach. “More than anything, the Turbo S is a beast to drive,” Cortina said. Beast is a good word, as the Turbo S’ forward thrust is animalistic. Its 640 horsepower will grab all the headlines, but it’s that torque figure—590 lb-ft of the good stuff—combined with the traction of all-wheel drive that makes this Porsche such a monster.

The McLaren is shockingly quick in a straight line, but the Porsche is gobsmackingly quick everywhere—especially blasting, clawing, scraping its way out of corners. Ready for it? I think going A to B on a twisting road, the 911 is quicker than the 720S.

One perennial knock on the AMG GT R coupe is that the rear suspension is comically stiff. Like the Chevy Camaro ZL1 1LE, the dampers are of the spool-valve variety and supplied by Multimatic. Long story short, spool-valve dampers work wonders on buttery-smooth racing tarmacs then beat your lower back with a 10-pound hammer on real, actual roads. Both the GT R Coupe and big dog Camaro ride atrociously.

My big worry going into this comparison was exactly that. I’m not sure if it’s the added weight over the rear of the GT R Roadster or if AMG actually retuned the dampers, but the soft-top’s ride is much, much better. Put it like this: Whenever I’m asked about the GT R coupe, I immediately dismiss it and say instead, check out the GT C coupe. You lose 27 horsepower but gain everything else. Here? I’d recommend the GT R Roadster over the GT C version.

However, the GT R’s handling was the least confidence-inspiring of the three. “The steering is too quick,” Cortina said. “You sort of have to trust the car and turn just as you’re entering the corner. The hood feels humongous.” Evans added that it “feels like you’re sitting on the rear axle and the front of the car turns before you do.”

Does this mean the GT R handles poorly? No, it’s just an odd sensation. Once you learn to trust it, I’d argue it handles about as well as the other two. It’s just not the most satisfying way to drive. I appreciate how efficient the GT R’s steering is—I don’t think my hands went past 45 degrees—but it’s too juiced. Evans again: “The Porsche required a flex of the arms to steer. This requires a twitch.”

I suspect much of this is due to AMG’s aggressive rear-steering setup. Years ago, on a prototype drive of the GT C I asked then-AMG boss Tobias Moers (in May, he was named the new CEO of Aston Martin) the difference between his all-wheel-steering system and Porsche’s. Basically, Porsche uses one electric motor for both wheels, and AMG uses two. AMG therefore is able to steer the rear wheels a degree or so farther. This strategy works in terms of getting the GT R around corners—but it just feels off.

The McLaren also has some feel issues. “This is the only one of the three that gave me sweaty palms,” Evans said. “The steering is both a blessing and a curse. At speed, it almost feels like a manual rack, it has so much kickback. It’s wonderful, but like an old manual rack, things get interesting when you brake. The 720S tramlines and moves around. The front tires never quite feel like they’ve got enough contact patch for the amount of stopping power the brakes are making. You have to be on top of the steering at all times.”

I concur; the steering is beautiful. That said, the 720S is one of the last cars on sale that fills me with terror. A Koenigsegg is another. The steering is perfectly weighted and requires low inputs. Grip is good, though the car mostly grips via the rear tires. The fronts are a touch busier. Those front tires have been and remain a relatively skinny 245 width. I’m still waiting for McLaren to do the right thing and give this car some proper tires. The new 765LT will come on race-compound rubber, but McLaren should at least make the P Zero Trofeo R tires an option on the 720S.

Like the McLaren, the Porsche is also on standard Pirelli P Zeros (the AMG is on R-compound Michelin Sport Cup 2s), but there was not a single complaint about the way the 911 handled. Miguel was nearly speechless, stammering, “The 911 truly delivers on every front.”

Scott was a bit more talkative: “You don’t have to manhandle it. Just be firm. Driving this car reminds me of target practice. Every motion is a squeeze. Control your breathing then squeeze the throttle. Squeeze the brakes. Squeeze the muscles in your forearms. Hit the target.”

I climbed into the Porsche thinking—strongly thinking—that there’s no way on earth either German had a chance against the maniac Brit. They’d both be outclassed. However, during my run up the mountain in the Turbo S, I realized that it’s just as quick as the 720S and inspires about three times the confidence.

That’s the key: confidence. Within a half mile I knew everything about the car and just started flinging it. The McLaren takes a few miles for you to build yourself up to take advantage its true potential. I’m not sure if I ever would get to the point of trusting the AMG the way I do the Turbo S, mostly due to the GT R’s steering.

Is this another win for another Porsche? Yeah, sorry. It’s true. If you recall the 1997 film The Devil’s Advocate, Al Pacino’s Satan is lecturing Keanu Reeves about what’s wrong with the latter’s “Florida stud” persona: “Look at me—underestimated from day one. You’d never think I was a master of the universe, now, would you?”

That’s this Porsche. Staring at the three, the Turbo S is a wallflower, especially in that (awful) shade of orange. The 720S is one history’s wildest-looking supercars (I find it bloody sexy), and the AMG is equal parts muscular and stunning. Not knowing anything, I think the Porsche would be the last kid picked for kickball. But as Pacino says of his devilish character, “They don’t see me coming.” We sure didn’t with this Turbo S.

First Place: 2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet

An upset win if there ever was one. Porsche is more unrelenting than ever before. The new Turbo S picks up where the GT2 RS left off.

Second Place: 2020 McLaren 720S Spider

A cruise missile with four wheels. Pure exotica. 720S Spider customers will no doubt crave a 911 Turbo S for daily-driving duties.

Third Place: 2020 Mercedes-AMG GT R Roadster

Down on power but high on charm, this AMG most likely beats all convertibles on earth save for the above two rivals.

2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet 2020 McLaren 720S Spider 2020 Mercedes-AMG GT R Roadster DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Rear-engine, AWD Mid-engine, RWD Front-engine, RWD ENGINE TYPE Twin-turbo flat-6, alum block/heads Twin-turbo 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads Twin-turbo 90-deg V-8, alum block/heads VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DISPLACEMENT 228.6 cu in/3,745 cc 243.7 cu in/3,994 cc 243.0 cu in/3,982 cc COMPRESSION RATIO 8.7:1 8.7:1 9.5:1 POWER (SAE NET) 640 hp @ 6,750 rpm 710 hp @ 7,500 rpm 577 hp @ 6,250 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 590 lb-ft @ 2,500 rpm 568 lb-ft @ 5,500 rpm 516 lb-ft @ 2,100 rpm REDLINE 7,200 rpm 7,500 rpm 7,000 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 5.9 lb/hp 4.6 lb/hp 6.5 lb/hp 0-60 MPH 2.4 sec (MT est) 2.6 sec (MT est) 3.5 sec (MT est) TRANSMISSION 8-speed twin-clutch auto 7-speed twin-clutch auto 7-speed twin-clutch auto AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.33:1/2.03:1 (front), 3.02:1/1.84:1 (rear) 3.31:1/2.27:1 3.88:1/2.68:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar Control arms, coil springs, adj interconnected shocks, hydraulic anti-roll and downforce resist; control arms, coil springs, adj interconnected shocks, hydraulic anti-roll and downforce resist Control arms, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; control arms, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar STEERING RATIO 12.5-14.1:1 15.2:1 12.7:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.5 2.5 1.9 BRAKES, F;R 16.5-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc; 15.4-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc, ABS 15.4-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc, 15.0-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc, ABS 15.4-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc; 14.2-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc, ABS WHEELS, F;R 9.5 x 20-in; 12.0 x 21-in forged aluminum 9.0 x 19-in; 11.0 x 20-in, forged aluminum 10.0 x 19-in; 12.0 x 20-in, forged aluminum TIRES 255/35R20 97Y; 315/30R21 105Y, Pirelli P Zero NA1 245/35R19 93Y; 305/30R20 103Y Pirelli P Zero Corsa MC 275/35R19 100Y; 325/30R20 106Y Michelin Pilot Super Sport Cup 2 MO DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 96.5 in 105.1 in 103.5 in TRACK, F/R 62.4/63.0 in 65.9/64.2 in 66.7/66.2 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 178.6 x 74.9 x 50.8 in 178.9 x 76.0 x 47.1 in 179.7 x 78.6 x 49.4 in TURNING CIRCLE 35.8 ft 39.7 ft 37.6 ft CURB WEIGHT 3,800 lb (MT est) 3,250 lb (MT est) 3,750 lb (MT est) WEIGHT DIST., F/R 40/60% (MT est) 42/58% (MT est) 47/53% (MT est) SEATING CAPACITY 2 + 2 2 2 HEADROOM 37.9/32.5 in 37.5 in 38.0 in LEGROOM 42.2/27.2 in 42.4 in 43.5 in SHOULDER ROOM 52.6/47.9 in 51.2 in 58.4 in CARGO VOLUME Front: 4.5 cu ft/rear seats folded: 9.3 cu ft Front: 5.3 cu-ft/rear: 2.0 cu-ft 5.8 cu ft CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $217,650 $317,500 $191,745 PRICE AS TESTED $236,120 $372,750 $216,240 STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/yes Yes/yes Yes/yes AIRBAGS 6: Dual front, side/head, knee 6: Dual front, side/head, knee 8: Dual front, side, head, knee BASIC WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 4 yrs/50,000 miles 3 yrs/Unlimited miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles FUEL CAPACITY 17.6 gal 19.0 gal 19.8 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 20/25/22 mpg (MT est) 15/22/18 mpg 15/20/17 mpg ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY 169/135 kW-hrs/100 miles (est) 225/153 kW-hrs/100 miles 225/169 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.88 lb/mile (est) 1.11 lb/mile 1.15 lb/mile RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium Unleaded premium Unleaded premium

The post All That Glitters: 2020 McLaren 720S Spider vs. 2020 Mercedes-AMG GT R Roadster vs. 2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet appeared first on MotorTrend.

via RSSMix.com Mix ID 8134279 https://ift.tt/3gacdha

#IFTTT #RSSMix.com Mix ID 8134279

0 notes

perksofwifi · 4 years

Text

All That Glitters: 2020 McLaren 720S Spider vs. 2020 Mercedes-AMG GT R Roadster vs. 2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet

The numbers are dazzling, if not staggering:

$825,110 worth of open-air supercars.

1,927 horsepower.

1,674 lb-ft of torque.

The shapes of these machines, especially in these colors, make children jump and squeal with joy—while most adults wish they weren’t quite so self-conscious so that they could do the same.

Intriguingly, these three roadsters do not follow a set template. The AMG is front-engine, the McLaren has a mid-mounted engine, and the 911’s mill lives behind the rear wheels.

As for the AMG GT R, the coupe version weighs 3,680 pounds, hits 60 mph in 3.4 seconds, and runs the quarter in 11.3 seconds at 129.0 mph.

The McLaren and Porsche are two of the quickest cars we’ve ever tested, but the 992 Turbo S will be quicker than the old one, and the Spider version of the 720S will be (a touch) slower.

The Fashion Show

Behind the Wheel

“I got goosebumps as I was driving up the mountain,” Cortina said of the 720S Spider. “This thing is fast—very fast.” Do we call Miguel Captain Obvious? Sometimes.

First Place: 2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet

An upset win if there ever was one. Porsche is more unrelenting than ever before. The new Turbo S picks up where the GT2 RS left off.

Second Place: 2020 McLaren 720S Spider

A cruise missile with four wheels. Pure exotica. 720S Spider customers will no doubt crave a 911 Turbo S for daily-driving duties.

Third Place: 2020 Mercedes-AMG GT R Roadster

Down on power but high on charm, this AMG most likely beats all convertibles on earth save for the above two rivals.

The post All That Glitters: 2020 McLaren 720S Spider vs. 2020 Mercedes-AMG GT R Roadster vs. 2021 Porsche 911 Turbo S Cabriolet appeared first on MotorTrend.

https://www.motortrend.com/cars/porsche/911/2021/exotic-convertible-supercar-comparison-mclaren-mercedes-amg-porsche/ visto antes em https://www.motortrend.com

0 notes

magzoso-tech · 4 years

Photo

New Post has been published on https://magzoso.com/tech/samsung-galaxy-s20-vs-iphone-11-vs-oneplus-7-pro-price-specifications-compared/

Samsung Galaxy S20 vs iPhone 11 vs OnePlus 7 Pro: Price, Specifications Compared

Samsung Galaxy S20 is finally official. And now that all details about its internal hardware and pricing are out, comparisons are inevitable. Going by its asking price and positioning in Samsung’s new flagship lineup, the Galaxy S20 takes on the well-received iPhone 11 and the OnePlus 7 Pro. The Galaxy S20 is the new kid on the block with more powerful specifications and an enticing set of features, but the iPhone 11 and OnePlus 7 are no slouch either. Here’s how the three phones compare based on their on-paper specifications:

Samsung Galaxy S20 vs iPhone 11 vs OnePlus 7 Pro price

Samsung Galaxy S20 5G is priced at $999 (roughly Rs. 71,100) for the sole 128GB storage variant, while the Samsung Galaxy S20 4G variant is listed at EUR 899 (roughly Rs. 70,000). The phone comes in Cloud Blue, Cloud Pink, and Cosmic Grey colour options. The India price of the phone is a mystery for now.

The iPhone 11 starts at Rs. 64,900 for the base variant with 64GB of storage in India, while the 128GB variant will set buyers back by Rs. 69,900. As for the iPhone 11’s 256GB variant, it carries a price tag of Rs. 79,900. It is up for grabs in Black, Green, Purple, White, Yellow, and Product [Red] editions.

Coming to the OnePlus 7 Pro, it is currently available at Rs. 39,999 for the 6GB +128GB variant, while the 8GB + 256GB model will set buyers back by 42,999. It comes in Mirror Gray, Nebula Blue, and Almond colour options.

Samsung Galaxy S20 vs iPhone 11 vs OnePlus 7 Pro specifications

The dual-SIM Galaxy S20 runs Android 10 with the One UI 2.1 skin on top. It packs a 6.2-inch Dynamic AMOLED 2X Infinity-O Display with QHD+ (1440×3200 pixels) resolution and pixel density of 563ppi. It is powered by the Qualcomm Snapdragon 865 SoC (or the 7nm Exynos 990 in some markets) paired with 8GB (4G) or 12GB (5G) RAM and 128GB of onboard storage that is expandable up to 1TB.

Samsung Galaxy S20 is the only phone of the trio to offer 5G support

As for the iPhone 11, it can accommodate one physical SIM card and support one eSIM. It runs iOS 13. The phone features a 6.1-inch Liquid Retina HD (828×1792 pixels) display with 625 nits peak brightness and 326ppi pixel density. The Apple offering is powered by the in-house A13 Bionic chip and packs up to 256GB of non-expandable onboard storage.

Coming to the OnePlus 7 Pro, it runs Android 10 with the OxygenOS skin on top. It sports a 6.67-inch Fluid AMOLED HDR10+ display with Quad-HD+ (1440×3120 pixels) resolution, pixel density of 516ppi, 90Hz refresh rate, and 19.5:9 aspect ratio. It draws power from the Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 SoC paired with 8GB of RAM and 256GB of onboard storage that is non-expandable.

Samsung Galaxy S20 vs iPhone 11 vs OnePlus 7 Pro: Cameras

Coming to the imaging department, the Galaxy S20 has a triple rear camera setup that is headlined by a 12-megapixel main shooter with an f/1.8 lens and OIS. It is assisted by a 12-megapixel ultra-wide angle camera with a 120-degree field of view, and a 64-megapixel telephoto camera with an f/2.0 lens. Selfies and video calls are handled by a 10-megapixel snapper with Dual Pixel auto focus and an f/2.2 lens.

Talking about the iPhone 11, its dual camera setup includes a 12-megapixel wide-angle camera with an f/1.8 lens and OIS support, accompanied by a 12-megapixel ultra-wide-angle camera with an f/2.4 aperture and 120-degree field of view (FOV). On the front is a 12-megapixel selfie snapper with an f/2.2 lens. It misses out on a telephoto lens, something that the Galaxy S20 and the OnePlus 7 Pro come equipped with.

Coming to the OnePlus 7 Pro, it also features a triple rear camera setup that includes a 48-megapixel image sensor with an f/1.6 aperture, OIS, and EIS. It is accompanied by a 16-megapixel ultra-wide-angle lens with an f/2.4 aperture and a 117-degree FOV, and an 8-megapixel telephoto lens with 3x optical zoom capability and OIS support. It has a pop-up camera module that houses a 16-megapixel selfie shooter with an f/2.0 aperture and EIS support.

Samsung Galaxy S20 vs iPhone 11 vs OnePlus 7 Pro: Battery, More

The Samsung Galaxy S20 comes equipped with a 4,000mAh battery that is compatible with Quick Charge 2.0, Fast Wireless Charging 2.0, and Wireless PowerShare support. It is the only 5G phone of the trio and has an IP68 build as well. It measures 161.9×73.7×7.8mm and tips the scales at 186 grams. Connectivity is handled by 5G (optional), 4G LTE, Wi-Fi 802.11ac, Bluetooth v5.0, GPS/ A-GPS, NFC, and USB Type-C.

iPhone 11’s battery capacity is not known in terms of mAh numbers, but it is claimed to last up to 17 hours of video playback and offers 18W fast charging support. It measures 150.9×75.7×8.3mm and weighs 194 grams, while connectivity is handled by 4G, 802.11ax Wi‑Fi 6, Bluetooth, and NFC.

As for the OnePlus 7 Pro, it comes equipped with a 4,000mAh battery with Warp Charge 30 fast charging (5V/ 6A) support. Connectivity options in the 4G VoLTE, Wi-Fi 802.11ac, Bluetooth v5.0, NFC, GPS/ A-GPS, and a USB Type-C (v3.1 Gen 1) port. It measures 162.6×75.9×8.8mm and tips the scales 206 grams.

Samsung Galaxy S20 5G vs iPhone 11 vs OnePlus 7 Pro comparison

Samsung Galaxy S20 5G

OnePlus 7 Pro

Ratings Overall NDTV Rating – Design Rating – Display Rating – Software Rating – Performance Rating – Battery Life Rating – Camera Rating – Value for Money Rating – GENERAL Brand Samsung Apple OnePlus Model Galaxy S20 5G iPhone 11 7 Pro Release date 11th February 2020 10th September 2019 14th May 2019 Body type Glass Glass Glass Dimensions (mm) 151.70 x 69.10 x 7.90 150.90 x 75.70 x 8.30 162.60 x 75.90 x 8.80 Weight (g) 163.00 194.00 206.00 IP rating IP68 IP68 – Battery capacity (mAh) 4000 3110 4000 Removable battery No No No Fast charging Proprietary Proprietary Proprietary Wireless charging Yes Yes No Colours Cloud Blue, Cloud Pink, Cosmic Grey Black, Green, Purple, White, Yellow, Product [Red] Almond, Mirror Grey, Nebula Blue Launched in India – Yes Yes DISPLAY Screen size (inches) 6.20 6.10 6.67 Resolution 1440×3200 pixels 828×1792 pixels 1440×3120 pixels Aspect ratio 20:9 – 19.5:9 Pixels per inch (PPI) – 326 516 Protection type – – Gorilla Glass HARDWARE Processor 2GHz octa-core (2×2.73GHz + 2×2.5GHz + 4x2GHz) hexa-core octa-core Processor make Samsung Exynos 990 Apple A13 Bionic Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 RAM 12GB 4GB 12GB Internal storage 128GB 64GB 256GB Expandable storage Yes No No Expandable storage type microSD – – Expandable storage up to (GB) 1000 – – Dedicated microSD slot No – – CAMERA Rear camera 12-megapixel (f/1.8) + 64-megapixel (f/2.0) + 12-megapixel (f/2.2) 12-megapixel (f/1.8) + 12-megapixel (f/2.4) 48-megapixel (f/1.6, 1.6-micron) + 8-megapixel (f/2.4, 1-micron) + 16-megapixel (f/2.2) Rear autofocus Yes Yes PDAF and laser autofocus Rear flash Dual LED Dual LED Dual LED Front camera 10-megapixel (f/2.2) 12-megapixel (f/2.2) 16-megapixel (f/2.0, 1.0-micron) Front autofocus Yes – No Front flash – Yes – SOFTWARE Operating system Android 10 iOS 13 Android 9.0 Pie Skin One UI 2.0 – OxygenOS 9.5 CONNECTIVITY Wi-Fi standards supported 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/Yes 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac/Yes 802.11 a/b/g/n/ac Bluetooth Yes, v 5.00 Yes, v 5.00 Yes, v 5.00 NFC Yes Yes Yes USB Type-C Yes – Yes Number of SIMs 2 2 2 Wi-Fi Direct Yes – – Lightning – Yes – Active 4G on both SIM cards – Yes Yes USB OTG – – Yes SIM 1 SIM Type Nano-SIM Nano-SIM Nano-SIM 4G/ LTE Yes Yes Yes SIM 2 SIM Type Nano-SIM eSIM Nano-SIM 4G/ LTE Yes Yes Yes SENSORS Face unlock Yes Yes Yes In-Display Fingerprint Sensor Yes – – Compass/ Magnetometer Yes Yes Yes Proximity sensor Yes Yes Yes Accelerometer Yes Yes Yes Ambient light sensor Yes Yes Yes Gyroscope Yes Yes Yes Barometer Yes Yes – 3D face recognition – Yes – Fingerprint sensor – – Yes

#Miscellaneous

0 notes

bongaboi · 5 years

Text

Long Beach State: 2019 NCAA Men’s Volleyball National Champions

It was a night they’ll be talking about for a long time. Inside their home arena, the Long Beach State men’s volleyball team became the first program in school history to win back-to-back NCAA championships, taking down Hawaii in the Pyramid in a battle of the two best teams in the nation. Hawaii took the first set before Long Beach rallied to win it, 23-25, 25-22, 25-22, 25-23.

With the two best teams in the country on the floor, a huge crowd, and a second NCAA trophy, it was an epic end to what has been a truly golden chapter in the school’s athletic history. The senior class led by TJ DeFalco, Josh Tuaniga, and Kyle Ensing will graduate having played in four Final Fours, won back-to-back national titles and set a new school record for consecutive home wins at 42.

“They did it the right way, they were very unselfish, they worked hard, and they brought their teammates along,” said Long Beach State coach Alan Knipe.

After the nets had been cut down, after the trophy had been passed around, after hundreds of hugs and pictures, that senior trio joined Knipe for the postgame press conference. It was a rare grouping of historic talent: DeFalco a two-time National Player of the Year (and MVP of this year’s NCAA Tournament), Tuaniga last year’s National Player of the Year, and Ensing this year’s Big West Player of the Year. All three will be headed to Anaheim shortly to join the USA National Team and begin preparations for this summer and the 2020 Olympics next year.

Hawaii head coach Charlie Wade said twice earlier in the week that he thought this year’s Long Beach State team was one of the best–if not the best–in the history of the sport.

“These guys have moved the mark like no other group has,” said Knipe. “Final Fours, national championships, player of the year awards. More importantly, they energized volleyball across the country. This group will go down as the group that moved the mark the farthest.”

When the evening began, it didn’t seem like it would end in tears of joy for Long Beach. Hawaii came out driving hard, pounding aggressive serves and taking advantage of a Long Beach State side that seemed tense in front of their home crowd. Long Beach fell behind big in the first set but rallied to make it close at the end. Then Long Beach won the second set thanks in part to back-to-back aces from Tuaniga; it looked like another five-set thriller (which would have been their sixth in a row) was in order. When Hawaii took a 5-0 lead in the third set, however, it was time to dig deep or pack it in.

“We talk about grit every day,” said Tuaniga. “We had to buckle down and execute.”

That’s exactly what they did. The Long Beach State serves found their targets and took Hawaii out of system, and the Beach’s Big Three took over. DeFalco finished with 20 kills on .516 hitting, four assists, three aces, five digs, and three blocks. Tuaniga guided Long Beach to a .427 attack with 43 assists, three aces, five digs, and three blocks. Ensing had 13 kills, three digs, and three blocks.

All three of them had major starpower moments. Ensing had critical kills late in sets, Tuaniga and DeFalco both had back-to-back aces, and everyone stepped up late in each frame. Knipe had told the media on Friday that the winner would be whoever could execute when it was 23-23, and he was right. A Hawaii service error and a block from Tuaniga and Nick Amado sealed the second set; a hitting error and a kill from DeFalco sealed the third; and two kills from DeFalco put it away in the fourth.

Knipe doesn’t like to compare teams across generations because of the major evolution the sport has gone through.

“But I’ll say this, I’ve been around this game for a long time, and I just know for all the teams I’ve been around, I’d like to suit up this team against any of them and see how it works out,” he said.

The scene afterwards was hard to conceive of. The players were on the floor they practice on five days a week, a floor they’d won 42 matches on dating back to 2017, and suddenly there was an NCAA trophy. Suddenly they were cutting down the net at center court of their home court, and their athletic director Andy Fee was tearfully hugging Knipe just a few seconds’ jog from both of their offices. The banner that will be raised next season will go up directly over where they were celebrating the win.

“Winning back to back national championships especially in our senior year is one of the most exciting times of our lives,” said Ensing. “Winning it here has been a blessing.”

While all the players celebrated with their families, that celebration carried a joyous surprise for DeFalco: all six of his siblings made the trip to Long Beach to see him play in the final game of his college career.

“For me living here and being here somewhat on my own for the majority of college and then to look up and see my literal entire family was very special to me, I didn’t know they were all going to be here,” he said. “Something like that just makes it that much more special.”

Asked about the future of the program and who the leaders on next year’s team would be, Knipe politely declined to comment. “To get too much into that wouldn’t be fair to these guys and this moment and what they’ve accomplished,” he said.

What they’ve done, of course, is to win, and then win again.

After the Pyramid had been closed down and the garish blue NCAA floor pulled up, the team pulled off on a bus to do something no team in the history of the school had done before: carry on an NCAA championship winning tradition. Just like last year, Long Beach State went to EJ Malloy’s near campus to celebrate, as city councilman Daryl Supernaw and others poured into the pub to take pictures with the team and the trophy.

Knipe lifted a glass and offered a champagne toast to his assistant coaches, players, and fans, and ended it with a message that gives some idea as to his plans for the future, both for Saturday night (and Sunday morning), and for 2020.

#2019 #long beach state #NCAA #ncaa volleyball

0 notes

hkpika07 · 8 months

Note

(516)

What would be the biggest hyjinx you can see the 516 trio getting themself into that would go as far to get the railway trio involved

I see them passing off someone or multiple people and get in way over their head trying to fix it. Like a miscommunication happens and they try to fix it but it keeps getting worse and worse. And they keep hiding it from the railway trio until they can't anymore and have to swallow their pride and ask for help.

#red answers #516 what's your emergency

6 notes · View notes

vistapostng-blog · 6 years

Text

3 NGO Staff Docked For Allegedly Mismanaging N4.5 Million Meant For People Living With HIV

The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Lagos Zonal office, on Thursday arraigned the trio of Owolabi Samuel, Esther Mate and Abimbola David-Orugun before Justice Hakeem Oshodi of the Lagos State High Court, Ikeja, on a three-count charge bordering on conspiracy and stealing to the tune of N4.5 million. The defendants, who are staff of Hope Worldwide Foundation, a non-governmental Organisation (NGO), were arraigned alongside Cumulative Ventures Limited and Continental Best Buys Limited. One of the count reads: “That you, Owolabi Kayode Samuel, Esther Olubukola (a.k.a Bukky Mate, Bukola Mate), Abimbola David-Orugun, Cumulative Ventures, Continental Best Buys Limited, Olaoshebikan Candido Clement (at large) and Abosede Fasasi (at large), sometime in January, 2007, at Lagos, within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, conspired to steal money, property of MTN Nigeria Foundation, a subsidiary of MTN Nigeria Communications Limited, set up to cater for the less privileged people and HIV victims across Nigeria and committed commit felony, to wit, stealing contrary to Section 516 of the Criminal Code Cap C17, Vol.2, Laws of Lagos State, 2003.” Another count read: “ That you, Owolabi Kayode Samuel, Esther Olubukola (a.k.a Bukky Mate, Bukola mate), Abimbola David-Orugun, Cumulative Ventures, Continental Best Buys Limited, Olaoshebikan Candido Clement (at large) and Abosede Fasasi (at large), sometime in October,2011 at Lagos within the Ikeja Judicial Division, with intent to defraud, dishonestly converted the sum of N3, 556, 000.00 (Three Million Five Hundred and Fifty- Six Thousand Naira) property of MTN Nigeria Foundation, a subsidiary of MTN Nigeria Communications Limited , set up to cater for the less privileged people and HIV Victims across Nigeria and committed stealing contrary to Section 285(1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2011.” The defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against them by the EFCC. In view of their pleas, the prosecution counsel, K.M.A. Olushesi, asked the court for a short date for the commencement of trial. However, in his response, counsel to the defendants, J.O. Odubela, informed the court that he had filed bail applications on behalf of his clients and also urged court to grant them bail on liberal terms. Justice Oshodi granted the defendants bail on self-recognizance. The defendants were also ordered to enter a financial bond of N2 million each, which should be paid to the Chief Registrar of the Lagos State High Court. Also, the defendants were ordered to deposit their international passports with the court’s Registrar. The judge, however, said that the bail would be revoked, if the defendants fail to perfect the bail conditions within seven days. Meanwhile, the judge ordered the commencement of trial, after the prosecution counsel, Mr Olushesi, confirmed the presence of his witnesses in court. Led by the prosecution counsel, the first prosecution witness, PW1, Abasiekong Udobang, Programme Manager, MTN Nigeria, told the court how the defendants misappropriated about funds meant for the treatment of people living with the Acquired Immunized Deficiency Syndrom (AIDs) and the less-privileged in the society. Mr Udobang also informed the court that the money belonged to MTN Foundation, a subsidiary of MTN Nigeria, which was established for the purpose of giving back to the society, in line with its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In his further evidence, Mr Udobang said that MTN, in 2005, engaged Hope Worldwide in order to implement two of its medical support programmes: Partners Against Malaria and Aids and Children and the Orphaned in the Community. “MTN usually gives funds to Hope Worldwide Nigeria, since it is a non-governmental organisation, on a quarterly basis. “Those funds were usually retired to MTN Foundation as a proof that the work was done. “Every year, we usually work towards a new agenda until 2012 when we became suspicious of some of their retirements,” he added. The witness further said that the case was reported to the Business Risk Units of MTN (BRM) for investigation. He said: “Following the information from BRM, we discovered that funds meant for buying drugs at the centres for HIV/AIDs victims were misappropriated “It was also discovered that documents were added in the names of two companies that we don’t have any dealings with. “After the findings from the BRM, the matter was reported to the EFCC for further investigation.” Under cross-examination by the defence counsel, J. O.Odubela, the witness confirmed that the money meant for the treatment of the AIDs victim was usually paid to Hope Worldwide quarterly. The witness also stated that after the fraud was discovered, members from the NGO were invited for a meeting to tell them the findings of BRM and that a letter was written to inform them about the fraud. Mr Udobang, who further said that the discovery led to the termination of the contract with the NGO, insisted that the letter itemised the area where they suspected the alleged fraud. He, however, could not present the letter written to Hope Worldwide in court. Consequently, Justice Oshodi adjourned the case to June 26 for continuation of trial. Read the full article

0 notes