Harry's Garage - YouTube

[732NM]

suffolk009 said:

My most frightening drive was in a Caterham Superlight. The 1.6 was supplied with, IIRC, what were basically Formula Ford wets. Crossplys too. Not good on a busy Belgian motorway in the torrential rain.

Avon ACB10.

I had them on my 330bhp Westfield, great tyre until in standing water, you can get some great slip angles on them.

[suffolk009]

732NM said:

Avon ACB10.

I had them on my 330bhp Westfield, great tyre until in standing water, you can get some great slip angles on them.

That's the one. Thank you.

[cerb4.5lee]

DonkeyApple said:

NDA said:

suffolk009 said:

My most frightening drive was in a Caterham Superlight. The 1.6 was supplied with, IIRC, what were basically Formula Ford wets. Crossplys too. Not good on a busy Belgian motorway in the torrential rain.

At least you were in a car that would offer substantial protection in a crash. Oh, hang on....

The key is to put the passenger in the boot when it rains.

I'm that short/small...so I reckon that I could actually get in the boot of mine to be fair!

[DonkeyApple]

cerb4.5lee said:

DonkeyApple said:

NDA said:

suffolk009 said:

My most frightening drive was in a Caterham Superlight. The 1.6 was supplied with, IIRC, what were basically Formula Ford wets. Crossplys too. Not good on a busy Belgian motorway in the torrential rain.

At least you were in a car that would offer substantial protection in a crash. Oh, hang on....

The key is to put the passenger in the boot when it rains.

I'm that short/small...so I reckon that I could actually get in the boot of mine to be fair!

I had to go in the boot of my father's original 7 for a few school runs when younger so it's manageable. My father, being a bloody liberal allowed my sister to have the passenger seat . Alsatians fit and at 7 stone will assist with traction.

An acquaintance bounced his Caterham, in the wet, off the side protectors of an HGV back in the 90s when I don't think all HGVs had them yet!!

[NDA]

suffolk009 said:

NDA said:

suffolk009 said:

My most frightening drive was in a Caterham Superlight. The 1.6 was supplied with, IIRC, what were basically Formula Ford wets. Crossplys too. Not good on a busy Belgian motorway in the torrential rain.

At least you were in a car that would offer substantial protection in a crash. Oh, hang on....

Shortly after I got my first Caterham (an ex-graduate X-flow) I saw a small accident at a Brands track day. The rear wheel wrapped around, crashing into the drivers side cockpit. I immediately had the side impact bar added to that and subsequent 7s. Of course that would be no help when being run over by a Belgian 18 wheeler.

I've had a couple of Morgans (still got one) and the prospect of an accident - particularly in the wet, has worried me over the years. A rear shunt from pretty much anything would be horrific. I've avoided motorways in bad weather and still do.

[DonkeyApple]

Likewise. I doubt the stats for A roads are any better than motorways but front engined cars with no weight over the rears are a recipe for having the back make a bid for freedom. You then need to move L1 as you e lowered the speed and then you're in the truck ruts so the car then starts doing the very movements that will trigger the rear to break so you have to slow down further, at which point you are now travelling slower than the commercial trucks and vans that won't see and have a live of arse sniffing at the best of times.

All in, with the simple stuff that's front engined, RWD it just makes sense to leave the motorway, if not just going to find a pub.

That said, at least being in a pseudo classic the brain is engaged to respond to the conditions, the M40 around Loudwater and the M1 near Scratchwood have curves which regularly collect BMWs and Mercs where the devout belief in electronics triumphing over physics at all times is tested. Weirdly, these are two curves which also invite Gallardos to end themselves. On the M40 it's the excess throttle given in the curve as the motorway starts heading up the hill and in the M1 the curve has standing water in L3 before the apex and has done since the dawn of time.

[DuncanM]

DonkeyApple said:

All in, with the simple stuff that's front engined, RWD it just makes sense to leave the motorway, if not just going to find a pub.

I did this last year in my GT86, but it was A roads down Salisbury way. The rain was so bad, my car was being covered by oncoming traffic, to the point of not being able to see, for what felt like forever. It's the worst I've ever driven in, I was very glad to make it to a little pub, order some lunch, and wait it out.

[DonkeyApple]

DuncanM said:

I did this last year in my GT86, but it was A roads down Salisbury way. The rain was so bad, my car was being covered by oncoming traffic, to the point of not being able to see, for what felt like forever. It's the worst I've ever driven in, I was very glad to make it to a little pub, order some lunch, and wait it out.

The only time 'nice little pub' is not the one size, fits all answer to any conundrum in life is when you've been in that pub all afternoon already.

[Skeptisk]

NDA said:

I've had a couple of Morgans (still got one) and the prospect of an accident - particularly in the wet, has worried me over the years. A rear shunt from pretty much anything would be horrific. I've avoided motorways in bad weather and still do.

A friend in Switzerland destroyed his Caterham (but luckily not himself) by crashing on the motorway in the rain. He said it just span. Presumably he was going too quickly for the conditions (which might not have been that quickly).

[DuncanM]

DonkeyApple said:

The only time 'nice little pub' is not the one size, fits all answer to any conundrum in life is when you've been in that pub all afternoon already.

[iandc]

M4SER said:

Great to see 750S video is generating plenty of debate. I can't answer every post but will do my best to cover most points here;

It's hard to drive a McLaren 750S flat out on public roads and stay legal on camera, hence why you didn't hear me red-line it through the gears in this video. Maybe I should have done a dedicated run but that's tricky to do with Mrs.M sitting beside you when you're away on a bit of a holiday.

Plus this is a real-world car review where I hope to give you an insight into what a car is like to live with, which is why I don't generally film stuff on track as a rule. I can say though, this 750S sounds great when pushed and much better than past McLarens. Yes, the V6 in the 296 sings a better tune but I really liked the more understated sound of the 750S as it sounded great when you wanted it to, unlike the Ferrari F8 in my view.

Another big surprise were the looks, which made you do a double take. The 720S always looked awkward to me, yet this particular 750S looked terrific at all times and generated lots of positive comments from others during my time with it.

Next, I should mention the Pirelli Corsa tyres, which coped way better with general usage than I expected them to do. Pirelli have recently revamped all their tyres but have not renamed them, which is both very odd and confusing. That new 2024 Porsche Taycan Turbo that has just posted a crazy 'Ring time was fitted with the new Pirelli Trofeo R tyre, not the Michelin Cup 2R as you might have expected it to be on and I understand Porsche have dropped the Cup2 from the GT3 in favour of the new Pirelli Corsa tyre fitted to this 750S. So all change there too. Yet I've seen nothing about this in the general media, though.

Then we come to the crazy level of performance on offer from the 750S, which is nuts yet not that unusual today. The difference with this McLaren is I didn't feel the need to wring it out in every gear to enjoy it. I loved the engineering under the skin, the linked suspension with no roll-bars, the rear wing flicking up when braking, the crazy torque at low revs, the stiff carbon tub allowing the suspension to do it's stuff, etc. Maybe it was the fact I'd already driven a 750S hard on track before doing this trip made me less frustrated I couldn't wring it out on the road, I don't know. Whatever, it's obviously stupidly quick but it was the way you could enjoy it without having to reach for the redline all the time I loved, safe in the knowledge that if a Veyron fancied it's chances, you could show it who's the real boss if you wanted to.

Other points about rHG oad-trips in general. You're basically joining me on a bit of a holiday away, rather than dedicated road-trip done purely for YouTube. Sometimes the roads are great and sometimes they're not (like Mallorca but then the scenery made up for it) but it's all part of the experience. I absolutely loved the Countach trip, as I got to really got to live with it again over a week on some great roads. Then I popped it on a truck and flew home, so easy. With this 750S road-trip, it was no issue to simply hit cruise and devour French Autoroutes while listening to podcast on the way home, which wouldn't have been possible in a classic. So that was great too.

I hope that answers some of the points you've raised in this thread and I can confirm there's a very different type of video going live 5pm this Sunday..

Very good points! I love all the videos but the road trips especially as they are a great insight into real life living with a car. Keep up the good work!!!

[br d]

Harry's point about the fuel gauge having no markers is a good one. I've just noticed that both the coolant and oil temp do have them and they are right next to it!

[M11rph]

Does the fuel gauge still show quantity and the range figure is based on consumption (usually over the last 20 miles)?

Ie. The bar is indicating measured Quantity? Such that when you fill up it does move all the way to the top?
_________________________________________
I thought the car sounded and looked fantastic. Probably too fast for my brain to keep up with!

[br d]

M11rph said:

Does the fuel gauge still show quantity and the range figure is based on consumption (usually over the last 20 miles)?

Ie. The bar is indicating measured Quantity? Such that when you fill up it does move all the way to the top?
_________________________________________
I thought the car sounded and looked fantastic. Probably too fast for my brain to keep up with!

Yeah the bar does go right up and does give an indication of the actual fuel in the tank, the reported range is a bit hit and miss because it shows what the car estimates you'll get based on your current driving style. Sitting on a Motorway it might say 250, pull off and boot it through a couple of roundabouts and that's going to plummet! That's as expected because McLaren can't predict the future. But Harry's right that a quarter and half tank marker would be a little clearer.

[964Cup]

br d said:

Yeah the bar does go right up and does give an indication of the actual fuel in the tank, the reported range is a bit hit and miss because it shows what the car estimates you'll get based on your current driving style. Sitting on a Motorway it might say 250, pull off and boot it through a couple of roundabouts and that's going to plummet! That's as expected because McLaren can't predict the future. But Harry's right that a quarter and half tank marker would be a little clearer.

The more annoying thing is that the gauge shows empty when you still have a fair bit left in the tank. If you drive from full gauge to empty, you will put in about 50-52 litres (for a range in normal driving of about 250 miles - or about 90 miles of London commuting - yes, really).

Here's an interesting thing: the tank in the 720, says my old handbook, was 72 litres. This is also what it says online for the 750. However my printed handbook and the PDF for the 750 says 60 litres. So do the PDFs for all the 720 model years now on the website.

In the 720 I would happily do another 50 miles of "normal" driving once the gauge showed empty and the range was "--". In the 750 I am not sure how far to risk it. I have tried using an OBD-II reader to try to get an actual litre number, but it just gives you the same %age that is shown on the gauge.

Apparently the very conservative gauge reading is so that you don't risk fuel surge or actually running out of fuel while WOT on track, but it's fantastically irritating when touring. As is not actually knowing how big the tank really is.

[E90_M3Ross]

964Cup said:

br d said:

Yeah the bar does go right up and does give an indication of the actual fuel in the tank, the reported range is a bit hit and miss because it shows what the car estimates you'll get based on your current driving style. Sitting on a Motorway it might say 250, pull off and boot it through a couple of roundabouts and that's going to plummet! That's as expected because McLaren can't predict the future. But Harry's right that a quarter and half tank marker would be a little clearer.

The more annoying thing is that the gauge shows empty when you still have a fair bit left in the tank. If you drive from full gauge to empty, you will put in about 50-52 litres (for a range in normal driving of about 250 miles - or about 90 miles of London commuting - yes, really).

Here's an interesting thing: the tank in the 720, says my old handbook, was 72 litres. This is also what it says online for the 750. However my printed handbook and the PDF for the 750 says 60 litres. So do the PDFs for all the 720 model years now on the website.

In the 720 I would happily do another 50 miles of "normal" driving once the gauge showed empty and the range was "--". In the 750 I am not sure how far to risk it. I have tried using an OBD-II reader to try to get an actual litre number, but it just gives you the same %age that is shown on the gauge.

Apparently the very conservative gauge reading is so that you don't risk fuel surge or actually running out of fuel while WOT on track, but it's fantastically irritating when touring. As is not actually knowing how big the tank really is.

Have you asked McLaren?

[bolidemichael]

E90_M3Ross said:

964Cup said:

br d said:

Yeah the bar does go right up and does give an indication of the actual fuel in the tank, the reported range is a bit hit and miss because it shows what the car estimates you'll get based on your current driving style. Sitting on a Motorway it might say 250, pull off and boot it through a couple of roundabouts and that's going to plummet! That's as expected because McLaren can't predict the future. But Harry's right that a quarter and half tank marker would be a little clearer.

The more annoying thing is that the gauge shows empty when you still have a fair bit left in the tank. If you drive from full gauge to empty, you will put in about 50-52 litres (for a range in normal driving of about 250 miles - or about 90 miles of London commuting - yes, really).

Here's an interesting thing: the tank in the 720, says my old handbook, was 72 litres. This is also what it says online for the 750. However my printed handbook and the PDF for the 750 says 60 litres. So do the PDFs for all the 720 model years now on the website.

In the 720 I would happily do another 50 miles of "normal" driving once the gauge showed empty and the range was "--". In the 750 I am not sure how far to risk it. I have tried using an OBD-II reader to try to get an actual litre number, but it just gives you the same %age that is shown on the gauge.

Apparently the very conservative gauge reading is so that you don't risk fuel surge or actually running out of fuel while WOT on track, but it's fantastically irritating when touring. As is not actually knowing how big the tank really is.

Have you asked McLaren?

5 litre can in the frunk and drive until you run out

[CLK-GTR]

964Cup said:

The more annoying thing is that the gauge shows empty when you still have a fair bit left in the tank. If you drive from full gauge to empty, you will put in about 50-52 litres (for a range in normal driving of about 250 miles - or about 90 miles of London commuting - yes, really).

Here's an interesting thing: the tank in the 720, says my old handbook, was 72 litres. This is also what it says online for the 750. However my printed handbook and the PDF for the 750 says 60 litres. So do the PDFs for all the 720 model years now on the website.

In the 720 I would happily do another 50 miles of "normal" driving once the gauge showed empty and the range was "--". In the 750 I am not sure how far to risk it. I have tried using an OBD-II reader to try to get an actual litre number, but it just gives you the same %age that is shown on the gauge.

Apparently the very conservative gauge reading is so that you don't risk fuel surge or actually running out of fuel while WOT on track, but it's fantastically irritating when touring. As is not actually knowing how big the tank really is.

Running it gently just the once until it splutters shouldn't do any harm and then you can find out exactly how much it takes, and how much is really left when it says empty.

[964Cup]

Hatfield confirms it is indeed a 72 litre tank. They sent me the options document which has a technical reference section that includes this number. So 19 US gallons, 15.8 Imperial gallons.

I think the problem is that whoever compiled the handbook worked out the litres from gallons, but used the Imperial gallons number and treated it as US gallons. Because 60 litres is indeed 15.8 US gallons, while 15.8 Imperial gallons is...72 litres.

[ArgonautX]

964Cup said:

Hatfield confirms it is indeed a 72 litre tank. They sent me the options document which has a technical reference section that includes this number. So 19 US gallons, 15.8 Imperial gallons.

I think the problem is that whoever compiled the handbook worked out the litres from gallons, but used the Imperial gallons number and treated it as US gallons. Because 60 litres is indeed 15.8 US gallons, while 15.8 Imperial gallons is...72 litres.

This is why the SI system was invented and should always be used