Flemke - Is this your McLaren?
Discussion
flemke said:
JR said:
flemke said:
... I feel free to speculate. ... £345k each (in mid-'90s money). Anyone else's speculations on this subject would be most welcome.
Care to speculate a little further? Say we took the cost as £400K +/- 15% and that as being double in today's money how much do you think it costs VW to produce the Veyron?
If we say that there were 11 years between the first production F1 and the first production Veyron, and we say that inflation during that period averaged...3% (?), after compounding that would be something like 40%.
If an F1 road car cost, say £375k to produce (marginal production cost, that is) at the beginning of the programme, before they went down the curve, that might be £525k in 2005 money.
In constant dollars, I can't see how the Veyron could have been produced for roughly the same cost as an F1; the cost of a Veyron (again, marginal cost of producing a single unit) must have been higher.
For one thing, the engine has a lot more parts to it (not to mention the turbo apparatus), and they're under greater stresses than what were present in the F1. That must have been more expensive to produce in constant money.
Then we have the gearbox. Here again, the Veyron's 'box is much more complex than the F1's - hugely so.
The Veyron's got all the complication taking drive to the front wheels, in contrast to nothing in the F1.
The Veyron has 10 radiators. I can't recall how many the F1 has - two or three.
All the electronics in the Veyron had a cost. The fact that electronic technology is so much cheaper these days than it was in the early '90s may fully offset the great disparity in electronic features, however.
The Veyron's aero features cost a lot more to produce than their simpler counterparts on the F1 would have done.
I don't know how the various CF construction techniques applied to the Veyron would compare with those on used for the F1.
The overall quality of workmanship is similar on both cars.
As with everything I say, this is an uninformed guess, but let's suppose that the Veyron cost...25-30% more to produce (at the margin) than the F1. That seems about right.
So, if in the same money an F1's build cost would have been £525, that would make the Veyron's cost...£650-680.
IIRC, there was what seemed to be semi-informed speculation that the marginal build cost of the Veyron was equal to its (original) sales price. Wasn't the original sales price 1 million Euros, plus tax? That would have been about £665k, which squares with our speculations.
I don't see the link in cost of a project to the inflation rate. Most projects that are undertaken now seem to cost hugly more than other projects of similar intent did in the past.
For example, the new Wembly stadium project. It has cost in excess of £1,000,000,000 to complete, and is very late. Compare it to the Millenium stadium, which was completed on time, in two years, and cost around £130,000,000.
OK, Wembly is better, apparntly. However, both hold capacity of around 75,000 ordinary fans seated (Wembly also has another 15,000 in corporate level facilities -doh) and the Millenium stadium is a hard roofed convertible to boot....
No where in the costs associated with the two very similar projects does the prevailing inflation figure seem relevant.....
Edited by tony*t3 on Monday 19th March 14:21
tony*t3 said:
I don't see the link in cost of a project to the inflation rate. Most projects that are undertaken now seem to cost hugly more than other projects of similar intent did in the past.
Isn't that exactly the point? You need to work out the inflation you you can have relatively comparable figures to show the disparity?
madazrx7 said:
Lot's of discussion about a track day only car, I presume you guys have already seen
http://dpcars.aprsworld.com/dp1/index
US $125K, 2.8L Hartley V8, 970BHP/Tonne
http://dpcars.aprsworld.com/dp1/index
US $125K, 2.8L Hartley V8, 970BHP/Tonne
Looks cool. Thanks for the link.
Not sure about road legality in UK/Europe, and not sure about 4WD, but let's wish the man luck..
Martin Keene said:
Thanks for the answer, all very interesting. I always took the sold at cost with a pinch of salt because Ron Dennis is far to shrewd to take on any busines venture that is not going to make money, now or at some point in the future.
This has in itself bought up another question, regarding cars produced. They were intending to produce 300, yet only produced 107, the only cause I have ever heard about for this was their new relationship with Mercedes, and thm not being happy with such a close relationship with BMW. Was there any truth to this story that you know of?
This has in itself bought up another question, regarding cars produced. They were intending to produce 300, yet only produced 107, the only cause I have ever heard about for this was their new relationship with Mercedes, and thm not being happy with such a close relationship with BMW. Was there any truth to this story that you know of?
As I think I said, it seems that, at the time that the project was laid out and commitments were made (in '89 during car boom), they were expecting to sell a lot more than the ultimate 100. Even Ron makes the occasional mistake, and by amortising the development expense over two or three times as many units sold they would have substantially altered the final economics.
If Bugatti could sell 50,000 Veyrons at £880k each, I've got a feeling that today they'd look at the project in a very different light.
As for halting F1 production, here again I don't know the facts, so I feel no compunctions about offering an opinion based on ignorance.
As has been said above, the car was not properly sold in the States (there were 7 cars imported, but not by the factory, before the US DoT closed a loophole). From fairly early in the programme, McL. would have known that US distribution was not on the cards for legal/technical reasons, so I don't see that the loss of the US market was directly connected to the change from intending to sell 300 to deciding to make only 100.
If we look at the price action of the cars in the secondary market when and shortly after production was finished ('98-'99), we see that, far from there being a supply-shortage squeeze, there was an overhang, and prices suffered. I shall not repeat here the price at which a friend has since claimed to me that he was offered a delivery miles car, but the number, if correct, would amaze many people.
I myself recall seeing in early 2000 in a UK mag advert a car being offered out of France, I believe, with minimal mileage. The price was something like £525-£550, taxes paid. This was against the factory price of £634k.
The market for the cars stabilised because in late '99ish the US passed the "Show or Display" legislation, which made it possible to import the cars to the States. By then there was an awful lot more money floating around in the States thanks to the tulipomania in the stock market, and some of it went after F1s. Of the fewer than 100 cars that are in the public's hands, I believe that 25-30 are in the States now, so it's clear that that source of demand has supported the price in the last seven years.
Therefore, my own guess as to why they built no more than 107 is that that is all that they could sell. I think that, once they announced that the run would end at 100 customer cars, the balance between what they had already sold and 100 was soaked up, so that by the end of production the factory was not long any cars waiting to be bought by unknown parties.
The M-B alliance was a convenient justification for ending production, but I don't believe it was the cause.
When it comes to how they treat each other, the German carmakers' motto seems to be, "Make Love, Not War".
gunner said:
Flemke,judging by what you say about the NSX I just have a feeling you might like the Cayman.Have you had a go in one yet out of interest?
ps this is the best thread on ph by a mile.excellent stuff.
ps this is the best thread on ph by a mile.excellent stuff.
No, I've not got around to it.
These days I'm sort of Porsched-out. I spent ten hours in a lovely example today, but sometimes you need a change of pace.
Glad you like the thread - it's the fruit of a lot of true enthusiasts having an ongoing conversation with a clown whose name is in the thread title - and I don't mean Bruce McLaren.
tony*t3 said:
I don't see the link in cost of a project to the inflation rate. Most projects that are undertaken now seem to cost hugly more than other projects of similar intent did in the past.
For example, the new Wembly stadium project. It has cost in excess of £1,000,000,000 to complete, and is very late. Compare it to the Millenium stadium, which was completed on time, in two years, and cost around £130,000,000.
OK, Wembly is better, apparntly. However, both hold capacity of around 75,000 ordinary fans seated (Wembly also has another 15,000 in corporate level facilities -doh) and the Millenium stadium is a hard roofed convertible to boot....
No where in the costs associated with the two very similar projects does the prevailing inflation figure seem relevant.....
For example, the new Wembly stadium project. It has cost in excess of £1,000,000,000 to complete, and is very late. Compare it to the Millenium stadium, which was completed on time, in two years, and cost around £130,000,000.
OK, Wembly is better, apparntly. However, both hold capacity of around 75,000 ordinary fans seated (Wembly also has another 15,000 in corporate level facilities -doh) and the Millenium stadium is a hard roofed convertible to boot....
No where in the costs associated with the two very similar projects does the prevailing inflation figure seem relevant.....
Tony,
I think that some of us would be interested in your fleshing out that point about inflation. No, it does not always apply to product comparisons over a span of time, but for two products within the same market sector, offered for similar prices, and entailing a high labour content, it would seem significant to me.
What makes you think otherwise?
As for Wembley, I think the explanation for that one lies largely in why the Olympics are already being costed at 3.5 times the estimate of less than two years ago, and we can be as sure as sure can be that the cost will escalate further.
Construction unions hold a form of monopoly power, and once a huge project has begun, for the customer to seek an alternative supplier is almost always infeasible. This is especially true for a massive, highly-visible project with an immutable time limit - and one that is being paid for with money that does not belong to the "customer".
clubsport said:
flemke said:
clubsport said:
10 hours in a Porker.....are you able to walk
Which example of the marque was it worth enduring that for?
Which example of the marque was it worth enduring that for?
Your namesake, sir.
Much respect, that is a serious workout.......doubt anyone could last 10 bours in a cuppie
My personal "best"(?) in that car was Dijon-London on one hot July day. You need to keep the windows down, to wear headphones, and to be a bit daft.
flemke said:
madazrx7 said:
Lots of discussion about a track day only car, I presume you guys have already seen
http://dpcars.aprsworld.com/dp1/index
US $125K, 2.8L Hartley V8, 970BHP/Tonne
http://dpcars.aprsworld.com/dp1/index
US $125K, 2.8L Hartley V8, 970BHP/Tonne
Looks cool. Thanks for the link.
Not sure about road legality in UK/Europe, and not sure about 4WD, but let's wish the man luck..
I've been following Dennis' progress over the past couple of years. Great to see someone with the resources and dedication to create something special.
If you ever find yourself with a couple of hours to kill, worth looking around his website at his various car & bike 'blogs'. He has certainly sampled a few different vehicles, combined with extensive trackday experience. I think that has given him a good basis to design his idea of the ultimate trackday weapon. I don't think he intends it to be road legal though.
flemke said:
JR said:
flemke said:
... I feel free to speculate. ... £345k each (in mid-'90s money). Anyone else's speculations on this subject would be most welcome.
Care to speculate a little further? Say we took the cost as £400K +/- 15% and that as being double in today's money how much do you think it costs VW to produce the Veyron?
If we say that there were 11 years between the first production F1 and the first production Veyron, and we say that inflation during that period averaged...3% (?), after compounding that would be something like 40%.
If an F1 road car cost, say £375k to produce (marginal production cost, that is) at the beginning of the programme, before they went down the curve, that might be £525k in 2005 money.
In constant dollars, I can't see how the Veyron could have been produced for roughly the same cost as an F1; the cost of a Veyron (again, marginal cost of producing a single unit) must have been higher.
For one thing, the engine has a lot more parts to it (not to mention the turbo apparatus), and they're under greater stresses than what were present in the F1. That must have been more expensive to produce in constant money.
Then we have the gearbox. Here again, the Veyron's 'box is much more complex than the F1's - hugely so.
The Veyron's got all the complication taking drive to the front wheels, in contrast to nothing in the F1.
The Veyron has 10 radiators. I can't recall how many the F1 has - two or three.
All the electronics in the Veyron had a cost. The fact that electronic technology is so much cheaper these days than it was in the early '90s may fully offset the great disparity in electronic features, however.
The Veyron's aero features cost a lot more to produce than their simpler counterparts on the F1 would have done.
I don't know how the various CF construction techniques applied to the Veyron would compare with those on used for the F1.
The overall quality of workmanship is similar on both cars.
As with everything I say, this is an uninformed guess, but let's suppose that the Veyron cost...25-30% more to produce (at the margin) than the F1. That seems about right.
So, if in the same money an F1's build cost would have been £525, that would make the Veyron's cost...£650-680.
IIRC, there was what seemed to be semi-informed speculation that the marginal build cost of the Veyron was equal to its (original) sales price. Wasn't the original sales price 1 million Euros, plus tax? That would have been about £665k, which squares with our speculations.
caviar said:
flemke said:
JR said:
flemke said:
... I feel free to speculate. ... £345k each (in mid-'90s money). Anyone else's speculations on this subject would be most welcome.
Care to speculate a little further? Say we took the cost as £400K +/- 15% and that as being double in today's money how much do you think it costs VW to produce the Veyron?
If we say that there were 11 years between the first production F1 and the first production Veyron, and we say that inflation during that period averaged...3% (?), after compounding that would be something like 40%.
If an F1 road car cost, say £375k to produce (marginal production cost, that is) at the beginning of the programme, before they went down the curve, that might be £525k in 2005 money.
In constant dollars, I can't see how the Veyron could have been produced for roughly the same cost as an F1; the cost of a Veyron (again, marginal cost of producing a single unit) must have been higher.
For one thing, the engine has a lot more parts to it (not to mention the turbo apparatus), and they're under greater stresses than what were present in the F1. That must have been more expensive to produce in constant money.
Then we have the gearbox. Here again, the Veyron's 'box is much more complex than the F1's - hugely so.
The Veyron's got all the complication taking drive to the front wheels, in contrast to nothing in the F1.
The Veyron has 10 radiators. I can't recall how many the F1 has - two or three.
All the electronics in the Veyron had a cost. The fact that electronic technology is so much cheaper these days than it was in the early '90s may fully offset the great disparity in electronic features, however.
The Veyron's aero features cost a lot more to produce than their simpler counterparts on the F1 would have done.
I don't know how the various CF construction techniques applied to the Veyron would compare with those on used for the F1.
The overall quality of workmanship is similar on both cars.
As with everything I say, this is an uninformed guess, but let's suppose that the Veyron cost...25-30% more to produce (at the margin) than the F1. That seems about right.
So, if in the same money an F1's build cost would have been £525, that would make the Veyron's cost...£650-680.
IIRC, there was what seemed to be semi-informed speculation that the marginal build cost of the Veyron was equal to its (original) sales price. Wasn't the original sales price 1 million Euros, plus tax? That would have been about £665k, which squares with our speculations.
Quite so, although those would have been development costs that were fixed by the time that production began, rather than being part of marginal production cost.
The "re-CEO-ing" is a good point. No matter what one may think about the car, one has got to hand it to Bscher: he turned chicken shit into chicken salad.
ETA: And in his single greatest contribution to the programme, Bscher also got rid of the diamonds set into the tach and speedo needles.
Edited by flemke on Saturday 24th March 00:16
flemke said:
caviar said:
flemke said:
JR said:
flemke said:
... I feel free to speculate. ... £345k each (in mid-'90s money). Anyone else's speculations on this subject would be most welcome.
Care to speculate a little further? Say we took the cost as £400K +/- 15% and that as being double in today's money how much do you think it costs VW to produce the Veyron?
If we say that there were 11 years between the first production F1 and the first production Veyron, and we say that inflation during that period averaged...3% (?), after compounding that would be something like 40%.
If an F1 road car cost, say £375k to produce (marginal production cost, that is) at the beginning of the programme, before they went down the curve, that might be £525k in 2005 money.
...
As with everything I say, this is an uninformed guess, but let's suppose that the Veyron cost...25-30% more to produce (at the margin) than the F1. That seems about right.
So, if in the same money an F1's build cost would have been £525, that would make the Veyron's cost...£650-680.
IIRC, there was what seemed to be semi-informed speculation that the marginal build cost of the Veyron was equal to its (original) sales price. Wasn't the original sales price 1 million Euros, plus tax? That would have been about £665k, which squares with our speculations.
Quite so, although those would have been development costs that were fixed by the time that production began, rather than being part of marginal production cost.
The "re-CEO-ing" is a good point. No matter what one may think about the car, one has got to hand it to Bscher: he turned chicken shit into chicken salad.
ETA: And in his single greatest contribution to the programme, Bscher also got rid of the diamonds set into the tach and speedo needles.
Cheers for that Flemke; it sounds more reasonable than the £5,000,000 marginal cost often mentioned thanks to a JC throwaway TG line, lol.
On another aspect I wondered how you were getting on with your new wheels for the F1. I don't believe (and hope) that I've missed any updates and would be grateful if you could mention how you are progressing. Jonathan
Edited by JR on Saturday 24th March 09:43
JR said:
Cheers for that Flemke; it sounds more reasonable than the £5,000,000 marginal cost often mentioned thanks to a JC throwaway TG line, lol.
On another aspect I wondered how you were getting on with your new wheels for the F1. I don't believe (and hope) that I've missed any updates and would be grateful if you could mention how you are progressing. Jonathan
Jonathan,
If Clarkson said that a Veyron had a per/car build cost of five million pounds, or five million euros, or five million of much anything, even he must have known that that was untrue. Performers tend to value shocking the audience more highly than they value telling the truth.
I had thought that he said that the cost of making each car was 5M euros, but it seemed that he was referring to the combined fixed development costs and marginal production costs, divided by an unknown, hypothetical and probably arbitrary production run.
The new wheels are in the process of being manufactured. After they're made they'll have to be tested and then painted, but I would guess that they'll be ready for installation by May.
Over the last few months we've made quite a bit of progress on other elements of the project as well. With these things, the actual manufacturing of the object is the easy bit. What takes so long is figuring out exactly what needs to be changed and why, and then what would be the best replacement solution.
For everyone with whom you're dealing, you need to get in a queue of clients who have also retained consultant A or manufacturer B to do work. The better a vendors is, the longer the queue is likely to be, and the more important the other clients (major car manufacturers, factory racing teams, etc) are likely to be. Hence a great deal of waiting is required, and that is not to mention the blind alleys down which even the best practitioners will sometimes go, let alone what an amateur such as I might mistakenly do.
We now have a pretty good idea what we're going to do with the brakes (major reworking), and the improvement that is within our sights is exciting (at least to my tiny mind). Most of the suspension stuff is either done or in the final stages (still working on spring and bar rates and damper settings).
One essential element is still in the design stage, but the design should be finished by end of spring and the parts made in July/August, I'd guess.
There is a realistic prospect of the project's being completed by year end.
I live in hope.
tony*t3 said:
flemke said:
JR said:
flemke said:
... I feel free to speculate. ... £345k each (in mid-'90s money). Anyone else's speculations on this subject would be most welcome.
Care to speculate a little further? Say we took the cost as £400K +/- 15% and that as being double in today's money how much do you think it costs VW to produce the Veyron?
If we say that there were 11 years between the first production F1 and the first production Veyron, and we say that inflation during that period averaged...3% (?), after compounding that would be something like 40%.
If an F1 road car cost, say £375k to produce (marginal production cost, that is) at the beginning of the programme, before they went down the curve, that might be £525k in 2005 money.
In constant dollars, I can't see how the Veyron could have been produced for roughly the same cost as an F1; the cost of a Veyron (again, marginal cost of producing a single unit) must have been higher.
For one thing, the engine has a lot more parts to it (not to mention the turbo apparatus), and they're under greater stresses than what were present in the F1. That must have been more expensive to produce in constant money.
Then we have the gearbox. Here again, the Veyron's 'box is much more complex than the F1's - hugely so.
The Veyron's got all the complication taking drive to the front wheels, in contrast to nothing in the F1.
The Veyron has 10 radiators. I can't recall how many the F1 has - two or three.
All the electronics in the Veyron had a cost. The fact that electronic technology is so much cheaper these days than it was in the early '90s may fully offset the great disparity in electronic features, however.
The Veyron's aero features cost a lot more to produce than their simpler counterparts on the F1 would have done.
I don't know how the various CF construction techniques applied to the Veyron would compare with those on used for the F1.
The overall quality of workmanship is similar on both cars.
As with everything I say, this is an uninformed guess, but let's suppose that the Veyron cost...25-30% more to produce (at the margin) than the F1. That seems about right.
So, if in the same money an F1's build cost would have been £525, that would make the Veyron's cost...£650-680.
IIRC, there was what seemed to be semi-informed speculation that the marginal build cost of the Veyron was equal to its (original) sales price. Wasn't the original sales price 1 million Euros, plus tax? That would have been about £665k, which squares with our speculations.
I don't see the link in cost of a project to the inflation rate. Most projects that are undertaken now seem to cost hugly more than other projects of similar intent did in the past.
For example, the new Wembly stadium project. It has cost in excess of £1,000,000,000 to complete, and is very late. Compare it to the Millenium stadium, which was completed on time, in two years, and cost around £130,000,000.
OK, Wembly is better, apparntly. However, both hold capacity of around 75,000 ordinary fans seated (Wembly also has another 15,000 in corporate level facilities -doh) and the Millenium stadium is a hard roofed convertible to boot....
No where in the costs associated with the two very similar projects does the prevailing inflation figure seem relevant.....
Edited by tony*t3 on Monday 19th March 14:21
agree with the increase in costs of projects being far higher than the inflation rates. but to compare the two stadiums is a poor example. Wembley is built to a far higher standard and incorperates much more facilities than the Millenium stadium. It's the things that you can't see that costs the money.
Edited by rpm100 on Monday 26th March 21:51
kibosh said:
Flemke.
See all that stuff wot you wrote aboot the Macca and espeshally aboot your impovireshed calculashuns aboot build/sell numbers n'at?....It wiz totally f*ck1n magik! (and I'm in complete and overwhelming A W E!)
Going to Villa D'este? Wanna have a coffee with Jim?
See all that stuff wot you wrote aboot the Macca and espeshally aboot your impovireshed calculashuns aboot build/sell numbers n'at?....It wiz totally f*ck1n magik! (and I'm in complete and overwhelming A W E!)
Going to Villa D'este? Wanna have a coffee with Jim?
I'm afraid that you've got me puzzled.
The only Villa d'Este that I know of is the one where Bernard Berenson lived. I've not been there and have no particular reason to visit.
The only Jim I know lives in NY; I was not aware that he was going to Italy.
I don't drink coffee.
But if you can clear some of this up, I'll think about it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff