Flemke - Is this your McLaren?

[flemke]

JR said:

and as you mentioned www.bridgestone.eu/bfe/tyreSelectorController?page=bysize&dataToDisplay=result&ts_width=215&ts_profile=45&ts_rimdiameter=16&ts_loadindex=86&ts_speedrating=W&hiddenSite=Bridgestone%20Europe

BTW I thought that the NSX started life with a 15" dia front.

You are quite right. They went to 16/17 in '94.

[ferrisbueller]

flemke said:

JR said:

and as you mentioned www.bridgestone.eu/bfe/tyreSelectorController?page=bysize&dataToDisplay=result&ts_width=215&ts_profile=45&ts_rimdiameter=16&ts_loadindex=86&ts_speedrating=W&hiddenSite=Bridgestone%20Europe

BTW I thought that the NSX started life with a 15" dia front.

You are quite right. They went to 16/17 in '94.

and 17" in '01

[flemke]

robbiemeister said:

Please forgive me for straying on topic but:

1) I thought the BMW engine in the F1 was a previous unused racing engine rather than a bespoke job?

b) I thought that only one firm (Bridgestone) made tyres for the front of an NSX as they were a unique size. 215/45-16

b) I believe that the tyres can still be obtained, but only from Japan and at an exorbitant price. All I can tell you is that the later cars are 17/17 with the exact same susp geometry as the earlier cars, so there's no reason not to use those sizes on the earlier cars.

1) No, it was a bespoke job.
Some people will say that it was derived from their straight six. The thing is, when you go to the world's premier engine builders, it should be no surprise that they know a few things about making engines and, if they do, you would expect them to have applied some of those things to their previous creations.
People will look at a new engine and say, "Oh, that's just an older model split in two, or spliced together, or whatever." The reality more often is, and in this case was, that BMW Motorsport applied to the new engine some of the things that they had perfected and exploited already.

[RobDickinson]

Were way past the point of pure innovovation with engines. From here on its refinement & materials.

[flemke]

Ultraviolet said:

quite a bit

I'm not sure that I could add anything to my previous comments, but I'll think about what you've said.
It is obvious to me that a major proportion of all the works of humankind that are lucid, vivid and sublime are the result of an individual mind. It perhaps does not have to be this way, but it usually is.

[flemke]

RobDickinson said:

Were way past the point of pure innovovation with engines. From here on its refinement & materials.

Indeed. The reason that F1 cars look alike isn't because the designers are devoid of creativity. It's just because they're coming closer and closer to the single optimum within the constraints of the formula.
What's the most important innovation in engine building in the last five years - DLC? Not exactly a sea change.

[Davey S2]

flemke said:

trackdemon said:

flemke said:

Why not make a track-day car that is outstanding without being over-the-top, a car that is class leader because of its build quality, tactility, adjustability, beautiful gearshift, fantastic brakes, and efficient, safe design? You could do that for a lot less than £175 k, and the result would, I daresay, provide much more driving satisfaction.

As usual, a great point. Moreover, I suspect that car already exists: 997GT3 (with the exception perhaps that the wing could be called slightly OTT)

I must have spent too much time in GT3s. You're right, it ticks most of the boxes, but I was thinking of something that's more unusual, and more focused on circuit driving without getting too deeply into the downforce game.
It's a pity that GT3s are not exactly charismatic.

There are more fantastic track cars around than you can shake a stick at.

Whilst I would love one, a GT3 / GT3RS is too expensive for heavy track use.

Anything from a Sport Elise to Caterhams and Atoms will give you far more pleasure on track than any 'supercar'

[trackdemon]

flemke said:

trackdemon said:

flemke said:

Why not make a track-day car that is outstanding without being over-the-top, a car that is class leader because of its build quality, tactility, adjustability, beautiful gearshift, fantastic brakes, and efficient, safe design? You could do that for a lot less than £175 k, and the result would, I daresay, provide much more driving satisfaction.

As usual, a great point. Moreover, I suspect that car already exists: 997GT3 (with the exception perhaps that the wing could be called slightly OTT)

I must have spent too much time in GT3s. You're right, it ticks most of the boxes, but I was thinking of something that's more unusual, and more focused on circuit driving without getting too deeply into the downforce game.
It's a pity that GT3s are not exactly charismatic.

Or I haven't spent enough; perhaps the RS is more appropriate if considering track focus. The 997GT3 fulfils every criteria you've mentioned in a way that nothing else I can think of does; I understand the point about lacking charisma but isn't that a function of its design efficiency? Charisma & efficiency seem to be opposing qualities where cars are concerned.... A 360CS is more charismatic but of course no manual gearchange and its build quality is not in the same league as a GT3; pricey too. Perhaps a Weismann represents an interesting leftfield choice and I understand its build is exceptionally good, not just for a car of its ilk. Everything I've read suggests it is a fantastically enjoyable drivers car too - safe design though? Cant think of anything else though, and - not having driven a Weismann - I think I'd rather have a 997GT3 anyway....

[flemke]

trackdemon said:

Or I haven't spent enough; perhaps the RS is more appropriate if considering track focus. The 997GT3 fulfils every criteria you've mentioned in a way that nothing else I can think of does; I understand the point about lacking charisma but isn't that a function of its design efficiency? Charisma & efficiency seem to be opposing qualities where cars are concerned.... A 360CS is more charismatic but of course no manual gearchange and its build quality is not in the same league as a GT3; pricey too. Perhaps a Weismann represents an interesting leftfield choice and I understand its build is exceptionally good, not just for a car of its ilk. Everything I've read suggests it is a fantastically enjoyable drivers car too - safe design though? Cant think of anything else though, and - not having driven a Weismann - I think I'd rather have a 997GT3 anyway....

Relative to real racing cars, the GT3, 430CS and Weismann are all rather truck-like. Great for what they are, but a good half-tonne overweight, with too high C of G and not much downforce. The one important thing in their favour is that they're pretty safe.

I was thinking about something like, say, the LCC Rocket. It's got numerous clever, lovely details. Simple, pure, no extraneous rubbish. And it is quick.
There is a car being developed in Surrey that's of the same conceptual family, although it will look totally different. Genuine 500 bhp/tonne NA, excellent build quality, thoughtfully engineered to perform, rather than to pose.

The build quality of the GT3 is excellent in terms of durability. In terms of craftsmanship, however, it ain't pretty. The RSR is rather beautifully crafted, but what's a new one - £250k or something like that?

Wiedeking is definitely not a racing guy, and it sometimes seems that he's not even a car guy. In his tenure he's been great for P. shareholders, and we enthusiasts need P. to be alive and well, but it's moving towards the profane. In the last decade they've made enough money off our backs to buy 30% of VAG for cash, for goodness sake.
What is wrong with this picture? If Dr Porsche or Ferry were still around, does one think that they would be squeezing their customers dry, shying away from any factory racing programme, and grossly overcharging for certain models by playing the contemptible Ferrari limited-build-numbers/unlimited-hype game? I doubt it very much.
Strip out a 997 RS just like the 993 RS CS, charge a fair price for it, and build as many as there are people to buy them. Then Porsche road-legal circuit cars might regain their credibility. At the moment they're at a low ebb.

[clubsport]

Or just get a 993 RS CS ........997 & GT3RS are great cars....but Porsche are happy to market and sell them in significant numbers.......you almost got the impression they really didn't care if they sold any of the previous lightweight Porsches.


Sadly as we know,,,,,,you now need airbags and seatbelts in modern day semi trackdars....oh the weight

[wfarrell]

flemke said:

wfarrell said:

One final question, I've been considering trading up from my current Z3 M Coupe (flawed but fabulous), to an NSX (I ran a Mugen-tweaked Integra Type-R a few years ago - fond memories of a bionic yet flexible engine, and a linear adjustable chassis).
Are the 3.2-litre cars significantly better than the earlier 3.0-litre models? (if you can advise, your comments regarding NSX handling and performance traits would be most appreciated).

Will,

I wish I knew enough to answers questions such as these properly, but I do not.
The Coupe is fabulous, but mainly for that engine, right? With improved brakes it's a super track-day car that works fine everyday.
The NSX is quite different, although not necessarily better. I say that because it definitely is not a track-day car.
For the road, however, it's great. My experience with the 3.0 is in the Type-R, which has shorter gearing than standard, a stiffer set-up, and in my case a tweaked engine. Thus I could not comment on the standard car.
The 3.2 is also a road car, but one that will acquit itself nicely on both tedious motorway baloney and spirited B-road blats. The chassis is its strong point - beautifully composed and integrated front-to-rear. Very precise steering. Great gear change. The NSX engine doesn't have the stonk of the Beemer, but it is beautifully smooth, very revvy, and in the top 30% of the range it gives more than enough performance for any of us mere mortals, without going into overkill. On B-roads, you'll be able to overtake safely pretty much everything, but you'll have to think more as you prepare for the overtakes. I'd call that a good thing, although it is true that all the NSX engines lack the bottomless power of bigger engines.

Cheers.

Flemke -- appreciate your comments re. my MC (it's ALL about the engine), and your insights re. the NSX.

NSX-wise, I really do like the idea of a balanced grippy chassis powered by an engine that just begged to be revved :-)

- Will -

[skeggysteve]

flemke said:

............
There is a car being developed in Surrey that's of the same conceptual family, although it will look totally different. Genuine 500 bhp/tonne NA, excellent build quality, thoughtfully engineered to perform, rather than to pose.
...............

More info please!

But if I've missed something - just ignore me!

G involved?

[Davey S2]

flemke said:

[quote=trackdemon]
I was thinking about something like, say, the LCC Rocket. It's got numerous clever, lovely details. Simple, pure, no extraneous rubbish. And it is quick.

Not exactly cheap though!

"Simple, pure, no extraneous rubbish. And it is quick." - Could sum up a decent Caterfield for a fraction of the price!

[flemke]

Davey S2 said:

flemke said:

[quote=trackdemon]
I was thinking about something like, say, the LCC Rocket. It's got numerous clever, lovely details. Simple, pure, no extraneous rubbish. And it is quick.

Not exactly cheap though!

"Simple, pure, no extraneous rubbish. And it is quick." - Could sum up a decent Caterfield for a fraction of the price!

We were talking about track-day cars relative to the Caparo. A Rocket costs barely a quarter as much as a Caparo supposedly will.

One of the criteria that I mentioned was build quality, of which the Caterfields with which I am familiar have next-to-none.

Perhaps a Donkervoort sits in this middle ground.

[flemke]

skeggysteve said:

flemke said:

............
There is a car being developed in Surrey that's of the same conceptual family, although it will look totally different. Genuine 500 bhp/tonne NA, excellent build quality, thoughtfully engineered to perform, rather than to pose.
...............

More info please!

But if I've missed something - just ignore me!

G involved?

Fully-operative prototype nearing completion; something will be published in due course; G not involved.

[flemke]

chp said:

Porsche has no real competition for the 911. Ferrari and Lambo are much more expensive. There are some niche players such as Wiesmann. Lotus has no Esprit at present, others are front-engined. Maybe the R8, but that`s inhouse. No wonder Porsches are expensive. But they are still very well engineered and others would have a long way to achieve this standard!

I think Porsches strategie buying VW is the right way. They may need VW very much from 2012 onwards. Lots of people say that German politics wouldn`t kill its own premium car manufacturers, but this danger is much underestimated in my opinion. It depends very much on the government then. The car companies bosses are very anxious about emission laws!

So there is no reason for expensive racing programmes at the moment and in the near future. Other priorities are much more important, if we will still be able to buy Porsches the way we know today!

Perhaps, to many of your points.
However, Porsche have not had a factory racing programme for a full decade now. During that period they've made how many billions of Euros in profits? Surely they could fit in a little racing once in a while.
As the sad recent histories of Maserati, Jaguar and Aston (and lesser marques) have shown us, a company can only go for so long resting solely on ancient racing glories if it wants its "sports cars" to be taken seriously and lusted after. It is true that Porsche have done a masterly job of producing profitable (to itself) customer race cars, which are so profuse and frequently successful that it has earned ample plaudits by proxy.
That act has begun to wear thin, however, especially now that the 997 RSR has disappointed relative to its main rival, the 430. Furthermore, it seems that every manufacturer has has its own one-make series, so there is nothing special about the Carrera Cup anymore.
The RS Spyder might have been the exception, if Porsche had not elected to go for LMP2 but instead had bitten the bullet and gone for LMP1. The rules makers have now made it pretty much impossible for an LMP2 car to win a race. (People tend to forget that when the McLarens finished 1,3,4,5 overall at Le Mans, they were not even in the highest category, which was prototypes.) Ironically, buying and running an RS Spyder is so expensive that it appears that there will be a paucity of independent entrants: it could end up being something of a factory effort after all. The RS Spyder, a superb race car, may end up being a damp squib.

I don't know about you, but I would find the world a sad place if every business acted as if its only purpose were to generate profits. Even if that should be Porsche's only reason for being, however, it could readily be argued that the long-term value of the firm would be made greater by an occasional factory racing effort at the highest level - look at how the R8 (racer) and R10 have given credibility to Audi, whilst going in the opposite direction and building the Cayenne has diminished Porsche's credibility.

I would not know to what extent German politicians might be prepared to spurn German premium car makers. Maybe some of them are sentimental, maybe not.
I do know that a huge amount of Germany's employment, tax revenue and positive balance of payments depends on the big four and their countless suppliers and adjuncts. We can be sure that German politicians will be loath to kill that golden goose.

[robbiemeister]

ferrisbueller said:

flemke said:

JR said:

and as you mentioned www.bridgestone.eu/bfe/tyreSelectorController?page=bysize&dataToDisplay=result&ts_width=215&ts_profile=45&ts_rimdiameter=16&ts_loadindex=86&ts_speedrating=W&hiddenSite=Bridgestone%20Europe

BTW I thought that the NSX started life with a 15" dia front.

You are quite right. They went to 16/17 in '94.

and 17" in '01

Merely quoting the propriator of Guildford Tyres when I was looking for that size to match the rolling radius of some 15" I was changing from.

[Martin Keene]

Superb.

It hase taken me over a week to read this thread, and that included skipping the bits which weren't directly related to the F1.

Flemke, thank you for taking the time to answer people's questions about the car and your reasoning behind 'tweaking' it shall we say.

Several questions have sprung to mind during reading and most have been either answered or forgotten during the course of reading. However, I think there is one question which hasn't been asked, and I think you alluded to it youself (apologies if you didn't).

If was said when the F1 came out that McLaren were selling it at cost and not making a profit on it. I always took that with a pince of salt, but as I said, it has been mentioned briefly in this thread, are you aware if there is any truth to this story at all.

[flemke]

Martin Keene said:

Several questions have sprung to mind during reading and most have been either answered or forgotten during the course of reading. However, I think there is one question which hasn't been asked, and I think you alluded to it youself (apologies if you didn't).

If was said when the F1 came out that McLaren were selling it at cost and not making a profit on it. I always took that with a pince of salt, but as I said, it has been mentioned briefly in this thread, are you aware if there is any truth to this story at all.

Martin,

An interesting question.

1. I definitely do not know the numbers.
2. If I did know the numbers, I would feel bound to keep them confidential, which means that,
3. in the absence of knowledge, I feel free to speculate.

There are so many issues that bear on an answer, but how they would bear on it is a grey area.
Let's say they built 100 cars. Let's say that they spent £15M in development. That would be £150k/car in development costs. But if they had sold the 300 cars originally intended, for the same overall development programme, the cost per car would be £50k. The car would be no better or worse, the cost of building each actual, physical car would not change, but there would be a big difference in whether the project was profitable.

Then we have the learning curve. Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, the "learning curve" goes down.
It originated in the U.S. during WWII, when military planners needed to have a good idea of how many new planes could be constructed by a certain date. What they found is that if they observed a team of experienced aircraft builders and measured how much more quickly that team constructed, say, its 6th plane than it did its 4th, than its 2nd, they could reliably predict how long it would take the team to build the 50th plane, after all the niggles and inefficiences had been worked out.

Then we have the value of the time that people on the McL. Formula One team would have spared for the road car. Was that costed into any calculations?

Then we have the fact that McLaren still own quite a few of the cars. Whatever they cost to construct would have been included in the total expenses of the programme, but was their value included in the assets that emerged from the programme, in lieu of the money that their sale would have realised?

Ron Dennis has been quoted as saying, with regard to whether the F1 programme lost money, that it had "definitely washed its face". What might this mean?
Sponsors pay McL many millions each year for the publicity and visibilty that they receive from their links with the team. What might be the value of having had "the world's fastest road car" for more than a decade, the last road car to win at Le Mans? How much did the F1's cachet contribute to M-B's interest in acquiring 40% of McLaren, and to the price that they paid? To what extent did the halo-effect of the F1 relate to the SLR programme, and how profitable to McL. was that?
Might Dennis have had some of this value in mind when he said that the F1 had "washed its own face", which is a bit different from saying that it was profitable in hard numbers?

What was the cost to McLaren Racing of losing Gordon Murray after his only season with them (not coincidentally, the most dominant season for a team in F1 history)?

We know that McL. sold and were paid for no more than 100 cars, at roughly £540 grand each. Let's call that £52M revenue.
For a total, lunatic, no-basis-in-reality guess, suppose that they spent £15M on R&D. That would leave them with £37M with which to build 107 cars, or £345k each (in mid-'90s money). Bespoke engine, bespoke transaxle, trivial commonality of parts with other cars. Carbon fibre monocoque and body. Labourious, painstaking build process.
My guess is that they priced the race cars at something well above the marginal cost of production but not massively so, which suggests that that marginal cost of production of the simpler race cars was...£350k? If so, perhaps the marginal cost of producing a road car was 350-400?

If so, they would have come close to breaking even on the programme, and if they had produced the projected 300, they would have made good money. The car's price was set, however, whilst they still had 300 in mind, not the 107 that ultimately left the factory.


Anyone else's speculations on this subject would be most welcome.

[Nick_F]

flemke said:

skeggysteve said:

flemke said:

............
There is a car being developed in Surrey that's of the same conceptual family, although it will look totally different. Genuine 500 bhp/tonne NA, excellent build quality, thoughtfully engineered to perform, rather than to pose.
...............

More info please!

But if I've missed something - just ignore me!

G involved?

Fully-operative prototype nearing completion; something will be published in due course; G not involved.

Ten(?) years ago there was a cover story in/on Car about a prototype being built around an extraordinary 2.0 V8, the engine being two Yamaha 1000cc cylinder blocks on a common crank.

The project foundered, as I recall, but the ready availability of these motors now must surely stimulate interest in something materially faster and more comfortable than a Seven, but more track-focused than a 911 derivative?

A V8 2.6l, 350-400 bhp Elise might be amusing.