Flemke - Is this your McLaren?
Discussion
tcf said:
I had the great pleasure of buying my copy of Driving Ambition from the McLaren Showroom on Park Lane when it was still open. I have a McLaren receit to go with the book which I think is quite special. Also there was no mark up so it was £40!
Flemke, although it may seem a little impertinent, I would be interested to know what you think of F1 values, especially now the Veyron is out? Although they are rather different beasts, there are only a limited number of people with both the interest and the funds to buy these cars - have you or your fellow owners found F1 prices to be affected? Did you expect the market to appreciate so much since you bought your car? And do you think your modifications will adversely affect it's value? I appreciate that 99% of F1 transactions are done in private, but that only makes guaging the market harder, and to have an informed opinion would be most interesting.
Prices for cars that are out of production can be perplexing.
It is easy to understand why there would be cycles during which the prices of everything move in the same direction, perhaps reaching an unsustainable extreme. The value of one thing relative to another can be much harder to reconcile.
Why should a 250GTO go for £7M? Okay, they only made 36 or whatever, but it's not that special. They only made 6 Cobra Daytonas, and they are half as much.
Leaving aside that extreme case, what about the 250SWB makes it worth £1M? They aren't that rare: something like 1400 of them left the factory. They're beautiful, some would say. They have an outstanding race history.
Okay, let's compare the 2.7RS. They were made in the same numbers as the SWB. They also look beautiful. They have a better race history than the SWBs. Yet a 2.7 will cost 80-90% less. Even a 2.8 or 3.0, which is much rarer and also more purposeful-looking, costs 70% less than an SWB.
The answer seems to be that in this world there are some number of yoyos who have got to possess a classic Ferrari. For many of these dudes, another million one way or the other is a rounding error, so they pay whatever it takes. Pretty weak.
I know that this is very, very much apples and oranges, but how can 1400 SWBs be worth £1M each while you can go out and buy a CGT - a truly fantastic machine of which 1200 were made - for one-fifth as much. Totally different fruits, but you know what I mean.
Right after F1 production ceased, the market value of the cars dropped well below what had been the list price. This is not surprising insofar as the reason that production ceased was that McL. couldn't sell any more cars. Supply and demand works every time.
The market lethargy continued for a couple of years. Then the US passed a law which made it possible for the first time for someone to import an F1 and drive it on American public roads under certain circumstances. This fact alone turned the market for F1s. At present something like 30 F1s are in the States. My guess is that 70% of the F1s that have changed hands in the last four years have gone there.
Three things were always going to give support to the F1's value:
- the fact that each car actually cost many hundreds of thousand of pounds to produce (how you allocate fixed costs is always a philosophical question),
- the fact that the maker is one of the three greatest racing car constructors in the modern era, and
- there is nothing else like the F1.
This last point has been highlighted by the Veyron, and in a sense that car has helped to buoy F1 prices. For VAG, the Veyron was mostly about making a car that was faster than the F1. For McLaren, the F1 was mostly about making the purest, most special and exciting sports car, which just happened to be ridiculously, unnecessarily fast.
By coincidence just today I was at McL. and chatting with the man who runs the F1 (road car) programme. He observed that a number of things were perfectly aligned to enable the F1 as we know it to exist:
- availability of one of the cleverest, most focused car designers in history,
- an almost-unlimited budget,
- absence of corporate interference,
- commitment of a world-class racing organisation, and
- a window of freedom from government diktat and intrusion that soon would close for ever.
Because of the F1's specialness, and the fact that there are fewer than 102 cars in the world, in a decent world economy there was always going to be demand for it. What the Veyron has highlighted is that nobody is ever going to build something like the F1 again. The other stuff is either too soft (SLR), too heavy and overdone (Veyron), compromised in quality (Enzo), too many safety concessions (CGT), no racing history now or in future (Pagani, Koenigsegg), and in none of them do you sit in the middle.
To the extent that the Veyron has pointed to the future of "supercars", it has helped the F1's value.
Having been rather static in the previous 5 years (since US demand began to build), in the last eight months F1s have increased in value by roughly 25%. At the same time the general market for high-end "classic" cars has been quite strong.
My modifications would definitely affect its value.
It is kind of crazy how these things work. There is absolutely no doubt that my car is now (and will be moreso soon) better than the standard cars. If the factory had done the modification work on my car, then that might have enhanced its value (but maybe not). Because a place other than the factory has done the work then the work becomes tainted. The pisser is that it was the factory that produced the flawed version in the first place, which after considerable effort I have mostly sorted out.
From time to time I think about buying another. One of the reasons not to do is that with a second car I would have to go out directly and change all the things that I've changed on my first.
This matter is not an issue for me. I won't be selling the car. If my estate wants to sell it, they can just put the original, less correct pieces back on and it will be standard again. By then petrol may be unavailable anyway.
flemke said:
By coincidence just today I was at McL. and chatting with the man who runs the F1 (road car) programme. He observed that a number of things were perfectly aligned to enable the F1 as we know it to exist:
- availability of one of the cleverest, most focused car designers in history,
- an almost-unlimited budget,
- absence of corporate interference,
- commitment of a world-class racing organisation, and
- a window of freedom from government diktat and intrusion that soon would close for ever.
I'd agree with that list. I'd also suggest
- no previous tradition of road car manufacture
Obviously they collectively had experience of designing racing car chassis and the guys they brought in had road car knowledge, but as a team, they didn't know that you couldn't have a central driving position/air brakes/exhaust silencer as crash absorber, because they hadn't done it before.
I suspect G.Murray's "focus" left the car with a few idiosyncrasies, the ban on a radio being the obvious one, but also meant that the car really was the product of one man's dream rather than a cynical marketing/accounting exercise/directors' ego trip, and all the better for it.
No, I don't think we'll see anything similar in the near future, although Zonda looks like it might come close. In lots of diverse area, you occaisionally see a company/individual who focuses on delivering a product or service that is the best it can be, regardless of what the competition are producing or how cheap they can make it. That doesn't necessarily guarantee commercial success, but does produce stuff like the F1.
bor said:
I'd agree with that list. I'd also suggest
- no previous tradition of road car manufacture
Obviously they collectively had experience of designing racing car chassis and the guys they brought in had road car knowledge, but as a team, they didn't know that you couldn't have a central driving position/air brakes/exhaust silencer as crash absorber, because they hadn't done it before.
Good point, although their lack of road car knowledge/prejudice definitely cut both ways.
bor said:You don't miss the radio unless you're cruising in 6th on the motorway and need a traffic report or (in the past) yearning for John Peel. I've gone to an iPod and earphones and will probably strip out the sound system, although it is a good one.
I suspect G.Murray's "focus" left the car with a few idiosyncrasies, the ban on a radio being the obvious one, but also meant that the car really was the product of one man's dream rather than a cynical marketing/accounting exercise/directors' ego trip, and all the better for it.
Pure, uncompromised vision - rather than a camel - every day of the week.
bor said:The Zonda is certainly the closest to the F1 in many important ways. I am looking forward to what GM has to say about it.
No, I don't think we'll see anything similar in the near future, although Zonda looks like it might come close. In lots of diverse area, you occaisionally see a company/individual who focuses on delivering a product or service that is the best it can be, regardless of what the competition are producing or how cheap they can make it. That doesn't necessarily guarantee commercial success, but does produce stuff like the F1.
-My modifications would definitely affect its value.
It is kind of crazy how these things work. There is absolutely no doubt that my car is now (and will be moreso soon) better than the standard cars. If the factory had done the modification work on my car, then that might have enhanced its value (but maybe not). Because a place other than the factory has done the work then the work becomes tainted. The pisser is that it was the factory that produced the flawed version in the first place, which after considerable effort I have mostly sorted out.
From time to time I think about buying another. One of the reasons not to do is that with a second car I would have to go out directly and change all the things that I've changed on my first.
This matter is not an issue for me. I won't be selling the car. If my estate wants to sell it, they can just put the original, less correct pieces back on and it will be standard again. By then petrol may be unavailable anyway.[/quote]
Please dont take this the wrong way but can it really be that Ron and the "F1" team produced a less than perfect car that benifits from aftermarket tweeking? What would Ron say? would he dismiss you as a fiddler with more money than skill?
Your posts are v interesting by the way but it seems a reasonable question.
Steve
sjp63 said:
Please dont take this the wrong way but can it really be that Ron and the "F1" team produced a less than perfect car that benifits from aftermarket tweeking? What would Ron say? would he dismiss you as a fiddler with more money than skill?
Your posts are v interesting by the way but it seems a reasonable question.
Steve
Steve,
This is a fair question.
I am under a bit of a unique legal obligation not to be too critical of certain things.
We are judging by the standards of 2005 a car that was really developed in 1990-92. Think of the incredible cars that Renault and McLaren put on the grid this past year and imagine that they were up against their predecessors from 1991. No contest, eh?
The F1 was not intended to be a "race car for the road". Murray had that specified when he agreed to take on the project. It was meant as a very different kind of GT, in which you and the squeeze might go from London to Monaco or from Munich to Barcelona for the weekend. This is why the stereo is great and Murray is so proud of the car's luggage capacity.
Another very important part of that is a comfortable ride, which the standard car has. That requires softer springs, dampers, anti-roll bar, bushes and, especially, compliant tyres.
Tyre technology is the most important and sophisticated area of motoring technology, as we again can see in Formula One. The F1's tyres are very flexible, especially laterally. To give you an example, the F1's front tyre is nominally 10mm narrower than the Enzo's front tyre. At the same time the former has a sidewall that is nominally 33mm taller, so the F1's tyre actually has more "surface area" than the Enzo's has. You might therefore expect that the F1's tyre would be heavier. Actually, the Enzo tyre is 22% heavier. This isn't because its tread blocks are deeper, it is because its carcase is heavier. As a result the tyre is much stiffer.
I would not criticise the car's suspension in the context of when it was built. I would say that in its original form it is different from what I want.
People such as Mario Andretti and Ray Bellm (FIA GT Champion) have made public comments on the car's suspension and criticised its behaviour above 6-7/10ths.
One anecdote, which is true: After discussing these issues with them literally for years, I got together with the McL. factory guys to set up and optimise my car's suspension. After several hours of testing by factory people at a proper test facility, they were satisfied. In theory and according to them, it was exactly as it was meant to be.
From there I drove the car directly to Mr X, who for many years was a top professional racer and tester and is also an accomplished engineer. He's a bit like a Mark Donahue but born fifteen years later.
I gave him the keys to the car and asked him to take as long as he wanted to form an opinion. He drove away and was gone for about 45 minutes, driving the car on proper roads. When he returned, he said, "Whoever is responsible for that suspension should be put in jail."
I'm just quoting the man.
>> Edited by flemke on Friday 9th December 22:14
flemke said:
Please dont take this the wrong way but can it really be that Ron and the "F1" team produced a less than perfect car that benifits from aftermarket tweeking? What would Ron say? would he dismiss you as a fiddler with more money than skill?
Your posts are v interesting by the way but it seems a reasonable question.
Steve
Steve,
This is a fair question.
I am under a bit of a unique legal obligation not to be too critical of certain things.
We are judging by the standards of 2005 a car that was really developed in 1990-92. Think of the incredible cars that Renault and McLaren put on the grid this past year and imagine that they were up against their predecessors from 1991. No contest, eh?
The F1 was not intended to be a "race car for the road". Murray had that specified when he agreed to take on the project. It was meant as a very different kind of GT, in which you and the squeeze might go from London to Monaco or from Munich to Barcelona for the weekend. This is why the stereo is great and Murray is so proud of the car's luggage capacity.
Another very important part of that is a comfortable ride, which the standard car has. That requires softer springs, dampers, anti-roll bar, bushes and, especially, compliant tyres.
Tyre technology is the most important and sophisticated area of motoring technology, as we again can see in Formula One. The F1's tyres are very flexible, especially laterally. To give you an example, the F1's front tyre is nominally 10mm narrower than the Enzo's front tyre. At the same time the former has a sidewall that is nominally 33mm taller, so the F1's tyre actually has more "surface area" than the Enzo's has. You might therefore expect that the F1's tyre would be heavier. Actually, the Enzo tyre is 22% heavier. This isn't because its tread blocks are deeper, it is because its carcase is heavier. As a result the tyre is much stiffer.
I would not criticise the car's suspension in the context of when it was built. I would say that in its original form it is different from what I want.
People such as Mario Andretti and Ray Bellm (FIA GT Champion) have made public comments on the car's suspension and criticised its behaviour above 6-7/10ths.
One anecdote, which is true: After discussing these issues with them literally for years, I got together with the McL. factory guys to set up and optimise my car's suspension. After several hours of testing by factory people at a proper test facility, they were satisfied. In theory and according to them, it was exactly as it was meant to be.
From there I drove the car directly to Mr X, who for many years was a top professional racer and tester and is also an accomplished engineer. He's a bit like a Mark Donahue but born fifteen years later.
I gave him the keys to the car and asked him to take as long as he wanted to form an opinion. He drove away and was gone for about 45 minutes, driving the car on proper roads. When he returned, he said, "Whoever is responsible for that suspension should be put in jail."
I'm just quoting the man.
AS I said... interesting, thanks
>> Edited by flemke on Friday 9th December 22:14
flemke said:
Please dont take this the wrong way but can it really be that Ron and the "F1" team produced a less than perfect car that benifits from aftermarket tweeking? What would Ron say? would he dismiss you as a fiddler with more money than skill?
Your posts are v interesting by the way but it seems a reasonable question.
Steve
Steve,
This is a fair question.
I am under a bit of a unique legal obligation not to be too critical of certain things.
We are judging by the standards of 2005 a car that was really developed in 1990-92. Think of the incredible cars that Renault and McLaren put on the grid this past year and imagine that they were up against their predecessors from 1991. No contest, eh?
The F1 was not intended to be a "race car for the road". Murray had that specified when he agreed to take on the project. It was meant as a very different kind of GT, in which you and the squeeze might go from London to Monaco or from Munich to Barcelona for the weekend. This is why the stereo is great and Murray is so proud of the car's luggage capacity.
Another very important part of that is a comfortable ride, which the standard car has. That requires softer springs, dampers, anti-roll bar, bushes and, especially, compliant tyres.
Tyre technology is the most important and sophisticated area of motoring technology, as we again can see in Formula One. The F1's tyres are very flexible, especially laterally. To give you an example, the F1's front tyre is nominally 10mm narrower than the Enzo's front tyre. At the same time the former has a sidewall that is nominally 33mm taller, so the F1's tyre actually has more "surface area" than the Enzo's has. You might therefore expect that the F1's tyre would be heavier. Actually, the Enzo tyre is 22% heavier. This isn't because its tread blocks are deeper, it is because its carcase is heavier. As a result the tyre is much stiffer.
I would not criticise the car's suspension in the context of when it was built. I would say that in its original form it is different from what I want.
People such as Mario Andretti and Ray Bellm (FIA GT Champion) have made public comments on the car's suspension and criticised its behaviour above 6-7/10ths.
One anecdote, which is true: After discussing these issues with them literally for years, I got together with the McL. factory guys to set up and optimise my car's suspension. After several hours of testing by factory people at a proper test facility, they were satisfied. In theory and according to them, it was exactly as it was meant to be.
From there I drove the car directly to Mr X, who for many years was a top professional racer and tester and is also an accomplished engineer. He's a bit like a Mark Donahue but born fifteen years later.
I gave him the keys to the car and asked him to take as long as he wanted to form an opinion. He drove away and was gone for about 45 minutes, driving the car on proper roads. When he returned, he said, "Whoever is responsible for that suspension should be put in jail."
I'm just quoting the man.
AS I said... interesting, thanks
>> Edited by flemke on Friday 9th December 22:14
Flemke, thank you for your full an interesting reply. Just my tuppence:
I have to say that both personally and as part of my work I find the market for high value and high performance cars fascinating - and the F1 is both. Regarding your comments on the 250GT0/ SWB, the value of these cars depends heavily on their history, especially race history. Other factors add to this (for example, as you suggested, brand, notoriety etc) and so what makes a 250GT0 worth £7m is the fact that it is from one of the foremost worldwide brands, it is limited edition, it cannot be made again and most of the cars have very interesting histories with named famous drivers. In addition is it known as one of the most valuable cars in the world - something which keeps it's value up intrinsically. In my experience SWBs vary considerably from £500k to £1.5m depending on history.
The Carrera GT on the other hand has none of these things, except brand, and no Carrera GT will be raced as far as I'm aware. The same problem affects the SLR. They are both great cars but (a) second hand values tend to reflect the fact that there are many cars available and they are comparable. Therefore of two cars on the market the cheapest is likely to sell first (see the 575 Superamerica as an example) and (b) there is a low intrinsic value to their production costs (rumour has it, for example, that an Enzo costs quite a lot less than £450k to build).
I am surprised that you have seen an increase in F1 values since the Veyron. I would have thought that most purchasers of £1m modern road cars would buy a Veyron over an F1 for the simple reason that some buyers only want the newest/fastest/most expensive toy (which explains the significant UK speculator market) and the F1 is beaten by the Veyron in these respects. On the other hand the weaknesses of the Veyron may have created more restrospective interest in the F1 again. Do you find that F1 buyers fall heavily on the 'enthusiast' side rather than the 'show off' side? Obviously considering the time and money you have invested you are an enthusiast but does the image and reputation of the F1 attract buyers in the same way that the high value of the car attracts people to the 250 GTO?
I personally think that the Zonda represents superb second hand value. I cannot believe that such a capable car with such a low production volume can be bought for F40 money. An XJ220 is also a bargain at the moment.
Regarding the value of your modifications, it is my belief that on most cars every £1 spent changing the car is £1 lost on its value in most cases, mainly because people who want personalised cars want to personalise them themselves from standard. Having said that the Christies F1 sold last Christmas was modified, but by the factory. On the other hand the ex-racer Ray Belm car was on the market for some months at reasonable money but it was a race car converted to the road and therefore perhaps only had a limited appeal to the already small group of potential F1 buyers. The other interesting thing to consider is, bearing in mind the almost total rebuild that an F1 has on resale from the factory, there can't be many 'standard' cars left.
Finally Chris Dawes completely destroyed the F1 he crashed, tragically killing his two passengers too. I doubt there was much of the car left to destroy/re-use.
Many thanks for your interesting posts,
William
I have to say that both personally and as part of my work I find the market for high value and high performance cars fascinating - and the F1 is both. Regarding your comments on the 250GT0/ SWB, the value of these cars depends heavily on their history, especially race history. Other factors add to this (for example, as you suggested, brand, notoriety etc) and so what makes a 250GT0 worth £7m is the fact that it is from one of the foremost worldwide brands, it is limited edition, it cannot be made again and most of the cars have very interesting histories with named famous drivers. In addition is it known as one of the most valuable cars in the world - something which keeps it's value up intrinsically. In my experience SWBs vary considerably from £500k to £1.5m depending on history.
The Carrera GT on the other hand has none of these things, except brand, and no Carrera GT will be raced as far as I'm aware. The same problem affects the SLR. They are both great cars but (a) second hand values tend to reflect the fact that there are many cars available and they are comparable. Therefore of two cars on the market the cheapest is likely to sell first (see the 575 Superamerica as an example) and (b) there is a low intrinsic value to their production costs (rumour has it, for example, that an Enzo costs quite a lot less than £450k to build).
I am surprised that you have seen an increase in F1 values since the Veyron. I would have thought that most purchasers of £1m modern road cars would buy a Veyron over an F1 for the simple reason that some buyers only want the newest/fastest/most expensive toy (which explains the significant UK speculator market) and the F1 is beaten by the Veyron in these respects. On the other hand the weaknesses of the Veyron may have created more restrospective interest in the F1 again. Do you find that F1 buyers fall heavily on the 'enthusiast' side rather than the 'show off' side? Obviously considering the time and money you have invested you are an enthusiast but does the image and reputation of the F1 attract buyers in the same way that the high value of the car attracts people to the 250 GTO?
I personally think that the Zonda represents superb second hand value. I cannot believe that such a capable car with such a low production volume can be bought for F40 money. An XJ220 is also a bargain at the moment.
Regarding the value of your modifications, it is my belief that on most cars every £1 spent changing the car is £1 lost on its value in most cases, mainly because people who want personalised cars want to personalise them themselves from standard. Having said that the Christies F1 sold last Christmas was modified, but by the factory. On the other hand the ex-racer Ray Belm car was on the market for some months at reasonable money but it was a race car converted to the road and therefore perhaps only had a limited appeal to the already small group of potential F1 buyers. The other interesting thing to consider is, bearing in mind the almost total rebuild that an F1 has on resale from the factory, there can't be many 'standard' cars left.
Finally Chris Dawes completely destroyed the F1 he crashed, tragically killing his two passengers too. I doubt there was much of the car left to destroy/re-use.
Many thanks for your interesting posts,
William
tcf said:William,
Flemke, thank you for your full an interesting reply. Just my tuppence:
I have to say that both personally and as part of my work I find the market for high value and high performance cars fascinating - and the F1 is both. Regarding your comments on the 250GT0/ SWB, the value of these cars depends heavily on their history, especially race history. Other factors add to this (for example, as you suggested, brand, notoriety etc) and so what makes a 250GT0 worth £7m is the fact that it is from one of the foremost worldwide brands, it is limited edition, it cannot be made again and most of the cars have very interesting histories with named famous drivers. In addition is it known as one of the most valuable cars in the world - something which keeps it's value up intrinsically. In my experience SWBs vary considerably from £500k to £1.5m depending on history.
I'll accept that Rob Walker's SWB in original livery as campaigned by S. Moss has a provenance worth paying extra for, as does Ronnie Hoare's GT0 that was raced by G. Hill. The fact is that almost all the SWBs and many of the GTOs, while perhaps having some provenance, don't have anything special. Just because Jochen Bloggs drove three Formula One races, and thus one has heard his name, and he once planted his derriere in the seat of a certain GTO doesn't make it worth 7 big ones.
People will pay what they will pay - it just seems stupid sometimes.
Yes, the GTO is known as one of the most valuable cars in the world, although that is the result, not the cause, of what people will pay.
tcf said:For sure the production cost of the Enzo was a fraction of the RRP. Just a glance inside the engine bay manifests that.
The Carrera GT on the other hand has none of these things, except brand, and no Carrera GT will be raced as far as I'm aware. The same problem affects the SLR. They are both great cars but (a) second hand values tend to reflect the fact that there are many cars available and they are comparable. Therefore of two cars on the market the cheapest is likely to sell first (see the 575 Superamerica as an example) and (b) there is a low intrinsic value to their production costs (rumour has it, for example, that an Enzo costs quite a lot less than £450k to build).
Which brings us to another interesting consideration. If Porsche get to amortise their CGT development costs over 1200 cars, while Ferrari can amortise the Enzo's costs over only 400, then the latter is (normally) going to have to have a higher RRP. In this particular case, it is clear that Porsche actually spent a lot more than Ferrari on the development costs. Ergo, in at least some ways the CGT is the better car, yet Porsche can afford to sell it for less. Because they sell it for less (to try to find their own optimal aggregate profit point, by selling more cars), the CGT is deemed to be less good a car - yet it's a better car.
tcf said:As I said, I think that the Veyron, because it is so much different from the F1 while being so similar to a lot of recent supercars, has highlighted the apparent fact that there will never be another F1.
I am surprised that you have seen an increase in F1 values since the Veyron. I would have thought that most purchasers of £1m modern road cars would buy a Veyron over an F1 for the simple reason that some buyers only want the newest/fastest/most expensive toy (which explains the significant UK speculator market) and the F1 is beaten by the Veyron in these respects. On the other hand the weaknesses of the Veyron may have created more restrospective interest in the F1 again. Do you find that F1 buyers fall heavily on the 'enthusiast' side rather than the 'show off' side? Obviously considering the time and money you have invested you are an enthusiast but does the image and reputation of the F1 attract buyers in the same way that the high value of the car attracts people to the 250 GTO?
Show-off v. enthusiast? For sure there are quite a few of the latter. According to the factory, however, a good 2/3 of the cars are driven rarely. No more than 10% of the cars have >20,000 miles; most have 3-8,000ish. Also, they say that only one owner has driven his car at top speed, which suggests a distinct lack of curiosity, if nothing else.
tcf said:Yes the Zonda is a great car, and the workmanship is as good as it gets, although the style is certainly an acquired taste. Also, Pagani as an organisation have no racing heritage at all. Furthermore, if their next car, due in a couple of years, is not a financial success then I expect that they'll go back to full-time CF manufacturing. There has got to be a lot more financial risk in buying a Pagani than there would be in most things. Even with Bugatti and Jaguar, if we cast out minds back far enough we can recall some racing success.
I personally think that the Zonda represents superb second hand value. I cannot believe that such a capable car with such a low production volume can be bought for F40 money. An XJ220 is also a bargain at the moment.
XJ220s go for about a hundred grand, right? I don't know about other people, but I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole at any price. And they ain't scarce - about 400 made?
tcf said:The most recent Christies car (073) was unique in certain ways, and the chap who bought it was prepared to pay most any price (he was joking with me the day before that he had just written off an Enzo, but he didn't much mind because he had two others.) Ray Bellm's GTR took a long time to move for reasons that were probably unique to it and the manner in which he chose to shift it; it is a nice car.
Regarding the value of your modifications, it is my belief that on most cars every £1 spent changing the car is £1 lost on its value in most cases, mainly because people who want personalised cars want to personalise them themselves from standard. Having said that the Christies F1 sold last Christmas was modified, but by the factory. On the other hand the ex-racer Ray Belm car was on the market for some months at reasonable money but it was a race car converted to the road and therefore perhaps only had a limited appeal to the already small group of potential F1 buyers. The other interesting thing to consider is, bearing in mind the almost total rebuild that an F1 has on resale from the factory, there can't be many 'standard' cars left.
As far as what is a 'standard' F1, a lot have been resprayed and retrimmed, but that's true for almost all the 250 GTOs, isn't it? Quite a few have the HDK and some have radios, phones, that sort of stuff.
You're right that modifications tend to devalue a car. That is an interesting and sometimes bemusing fact, as I alluded. You can improve a car, but even when the work was done by a more-competent third party because by definition the factory was not up to the job, most of the outside world won't rate it.
That's okay for F1s, because either owners will never drive theirs properly - in which case, what was the point? - or they will and they'll probably crash them. Which in a roundabout way may increase the value of mine by reducing the supply.
Thanks for sharing with us your professional insights - we need them to learn what's really going on!
>> Edited by flemke on Saturday 10th December 22:08
Flemke, as usual a well considered reply.
As you know a car's value is what someone will pay for it - quite simple really. The fact of the matter is that, even with a no-hoper formula 1 driver on the history book, that is still worth something more to most people than the same car without such a history. Hence the spread of prices for historic racing cars, from those with 'big names' in the book to those with no racing history at all. Put simply 250GTOs pretty much all have some fascinating history to them, but even the least campaigned example still has the legendary qualities that make it worth (to some people) £5m. I do agree that this is based on the fact that it is known as being worth £5m, but if that is what someone is willing to pay, by default that is it's value! Intrinsically it is worth no more than the sum of its parts, but the history of the car is therefore the £4.8m extra (supposing a 250GTO would cost £200,000 to make properly). 'People will pay what they will pay' - even if it is not what you or I would value it at!
You are right to say that most cars have been resprayed, but they are normally resprayed and retrimmed in the original colours. My point about 'standard' F1s was that they are often completely altered to the new owners preferences, so I am lead to believe and therefore wholly original cars are probably rare. I believe that there are approx 80 road cars still remaining.
Driving a McLaren F1 at top speed is pretty rare by default of the fact that there aren't many places in the world (or any in the UK) where 242mph can be achieved! I know that there are still some delivery mileage F1s out there, it will be interesting to see how much they are offered at were they ever to come onto the open market (I heard £1.2m plus recently).
Being a pedant, I should just mention that Pagani did campaign a Zonda at Le Mans 04 - not very successfully. I am sure that as and when the world markets turn, Pagani will get off the supercar side of their business - although perhaps the limited number of cars by that time makes the second hand cars even more of a bargain! May I ask why the aversion to XJ220s? I know they have their faults (sounding like nails in a cement mixer, being far too large, being completely unsighted) but for £100k there really is nothing to compare. There were only 67 right hand drive cars made, making them pretty rare (especially compared to 1311 F40s).
I think my ramblings may be boring other readers, but please feel free to get in touch via my profile if I may be of assistance. I have a good picture of your car which I would be happy to scan and e-mail to you if you would be interested.
Best wishes,
William
As you know a car's value is what someone will pay for it - quite simple really. The fact of the matter is that, even with a no-hoper formula 1 driver on the history book, that is still worth something more to most people than the same car without such a history. Hence the spread of prices for historic racing cars, from those with 'big names' in the book to those with no racing history at all. Put simply 250GTOs pretty much all have some fascinating history to them, but even the least campaigned example still has the legendary qualities that make it worth (to some people) £5m. I do agree that this is based on the fact that it is known as being worth £5m, but if that is what someone is willing to pay, by default that is it's value! Intrinsically it is worth no more than the sum of its parts, but the history of the car is therefore the £4.8m extra (supposing a 250GTO would cost £200,000 to make properly). 'People will pay what they will pay' - even if it is not what you or I would value it at!
You are right to say that most cars have been resprayed, but they are normally resprayed and retrimmed in the original colours. My point about 'standard' F1s was that they are often completely altered to the new owners preferences, so I am lead to believe and therefore wholly original cars are probably rare. I believe that there are approx 80 road cars still remaining.
Driving a McLaren F1 at top speed is pretty rare by default of the fact that there aren't many places in the world (or any in the UK) where 242mph can be achieved! I know that there are still some delivery mileage F1s out there, it will be interesting to see how much they are offered at were they ever to come onto the open market (I heard £1.2m plus recently).
Being a pedant, I should just mention that Pagani did campaign a Zonda at Le Mans 04 - not very successfully. I am sure that as and when the world markets turn, Pagani will get off the supercar side of their business - although perhaps the limited number of cars by that time makes the second hand cars even more of a bargain! May I ask why the aversion to XJ220s? I know they have their faults (sounding like nails in a cement mixer, being far too large, being completely unsighted) but for £100k there really is nothing to compare. There were only 67 right hand drive cars made, making them pretty rare (especially compared to 1311 F40s).
I think my ramblings may be boring other readers, but please feel free to get in touch via my profile if I may be of assistance. I have a good picture of your car which I would be happy to scan and e-mail to you if you would be interested.
Best wishes,
William
up-the-dubs said:Yes. It's not a problem. I'm lucky to have the car, so it would be pretty mean of me to begrudge someone's taking a picture of it. I don't understand why people want to do this, but if they get pleasure from it, why not? I would have to be even more of a jerk than I am already to say, "No, you can't stand next to the car".
Flemke.... Is that your F1 in CAR Magazine this month in the "readers with a camera" piece. There's a page of "captured" F1s with a pic of a blue one with black/anthrecite wheels. Does this kind of happy snapping get annoying after a time?
Just Curious.
Thanks
And I would much rather a picture be taken in front of a McDonald's than in front of some pretentious dump reserved for pretentious people. If I ever drove to Monte Carlo I think I would have to bring along insect repellent - for the two-legged kind.
GavinPearson said:
Flemke - I'm interested in your comment about the Jaguar XJ220. Please can you give us a no holds barred critique of the car. And while you're on the subject, please can you critque the XJR-15 too. Thanks.
Gavin,
I wish I had direct experience to share with you but I have none.
I based my opinion, which I stand by, on a few immutable facts:
- The car could have been called the "220" because of its width - in excess of 220 cms. The size of the thing is a joke. The guys at McLaren told me that when they brought one in to study, they were astonished at its unnecessary bulk. They said that Murray couldn't imagine how you could waste that much space, unless you had done so intentionally. No matter what else the car may be about, its girth is a deal-breaker. When I see one I immediately think of the floats in the Rose Parade.
- It was promoted as a V12 but, as we know, it was ultimately compromised down to a 3.5 turbo V6. Very uninspiring.
- The instrument binnacle is appalling. It's one of those things that are not only dated, but they didn't even look good when the things that they resemble were in fashion. It looks like a design study for the interior of an mid-'80s Volvo that was rejected.
- The car was a product of the dark years at Jaguar. After the war Jag had fifteen or so glory years that culminated in the low-drag, lightweight E-type. It was downhill for decades after. Apart from that lovely arcing rear roofline of the XJS, I can't think of much else of value that Jag did in the '70s, '80s and maybe since.
With those fatal flaws in mind, the car would have to be mind-bogglingly good in all other areas in order to be desirable. Life is too short to spend time digging deeper.
With respect to the XJR15, it was originally my understanding that only one was road-legal. Since then I have seen allusions to other cars' having been legalised. Here again I have no personal experience, although with a NA V12 and much better looks than the 220, the 15 might possibly be interesting.
After the antics that Tom Walkinshaw got up to at Arrows (as reported in the court transcripts), however, I am bound to say that I would prefer to steer clear of anything to do with the man, even though he did know a lot about cars.
Sorry that I can't be more helpful.
>> Edited by flemke on Tuesday 13th December 18:57
I was pleased to see an enthusiastic owner take an Xj220 along to a bedford trackday, due to it's width it was nigh on impossible to overtake. This wasn't too much of a problem as when pushed the car often seemed to spin off out of the way leaving clear track 
This is sometimes a problem on trackdays when you encounter your dream cars you have had stuck on your walls only to find some of them should stay on posters!
This is sometimes a problem on trackdays when you encounter your dream cars you have had stuck on your walls only to find some of them should stay on posters!
Flemke - interesting response.
Having been in the Jaguar XJ220 and seen some fairly interesting kit in action at MIRA, notably the F1 and the Yamaha OX99, I was amazed at the general bulk of the car. I was not impressed with the level of visibility in the Jag - and no matter where your eyes are in relation to the windscreen it is super difficult to place the corners of the car. For those with more cash than talent, I am sure that it is a nice car to brag about, it's just that given the same cash and with a gun to my head I'd find other more interesting cars to buy instead.
Tom Walkinshaw is a very interesting fellow, and no matter what his success as a team owner and driver was I am sure that as a Salesman and deal maker he was 1000 times better than he was in the previous roles. I'd love to see the transcripts about Arrows, and what you elude to does not surpise me in the least.
There is a very interesting article about the Veyron in the January 2006 edition of Road and Track, written by Gordon Murray, it is an interesting read though it has obviosuly been pitched at the enthusiast rather than the engineer.
Having been in the Jaguar XJ220 and seen some fairly interesting kit in action at MIRA, notably the F1 and the Yamaha OX99, I was amazed at the general bulk of the car. I was not impressed with the level of visibility in the Jag - and no matter where your eyes are in relation to the windscreen it is super difficult to place the corners of the car. For those with more cash than talent, I am sure that it is a nice car to brag about, it's just that given the same cash and with a gun to my head I'd find other more interesting cars to buy instead.
Tom Walkinshaw is a very interesting fellow, and no matter what his success as a team owner and driver was I am sure that as a Salesman and deal maker he was 1000 times better than he was in the previous roles. I'd love to see the transcripts about Arrows, and what you elude to does not surpise me in the least.
There is a very interesting article about the Veyron in the January 2006 edition of Road and Track, written by Gordon Murray, it is an interesting read though it has obviosuly been pitched at the enthusiast rather than the engineer.
I actually like the look of the XJ220, but agree it's far too large, if it was 4/5ths the size it could be well-proportioned car in my opinion. The interior is 1980s Lancia quality and whilst it's quick in a straight line, the brakes are terrible and I'm not sure the handling is much better.
The value of Supercars is very interesting, the one that I always look at is 959 vs F40. Both were the height of late 80's supercars and direct adversaries. Neither raced a great deal, with perhaps 959 having the edge with the LeMans entries (as 961) and Paris-Dakar success. The 959 was produced in about 5 times less quantity (272 vs 1300+), yet the 959 could have been bought for circa £100k or less in the last year in the UK, whereas the F40 now seems to trade about £175k. So for price vs rarity, the ratio is about 8:1 - thats got to be primarily due to the Ferrari factor.
Guy
The value of Supercars is very interesting, the one that I always look at is 959 vs F40. Both were the height of late 80's supercars and direct adversaries. Neither raced a great deal, with perhaps 959 having the edge with the LeMans entries (as 961) and Paris-Dakar success. The 959 was produced in about 5 times less quantity (272 vs 1300+), yet the 959 could have been bought for circa £100k or less in the last year in the UK, whereas the F40 now seems to trade about £175k. So for price vs rarity, the ratio is about 8:1 - thats got to be primarily due to the Ferrari factor.
Guy
flemke said:That is not quite true: Horatio started his automotive career by designing and campaigning his own F2 (I think) car in Argentina. Indeed, I was lucky to see that very car in the Pagani HQ.
Also, Pagani as an organisation have no racing heritage at all.
Picture courtesy of .Adam.
Not an illustrious racing heritage I'll grant you, but at least one grounded in designing from scratch and racing cars.
GuyR said:
I actually like the look of the XJ220, but agree it's far too large, if it was 4/5ths the size it could be well-proportioned car in my opinion. The interior is 1980s Lancia quality and whilst it's quick in a straight line, the brakes are terrible and I'm not sure the handling is much better.
The value of Supercars is very interesting, the one that I always look at is 959 vs F40. Both were the height of late 80's supercars and direct adversaries. Neither raced a great deal, with perhaps 959 having the edge with the LeMans entries (as 961) and Paris-Dakar success. The 959 was produced in about 5 times less quantity (272 vs 1300+), yet the 959 could have been bought for circa £100k or less in the last year in the UK, whereas the F40 now seems to trade about £175k. So for price vs rarity, the ratio is about 8:1 - thats got to be primarily due to the Ferrari factor.
Guy
The F40 did race in IMSA and at Le Mans in LM/GTE guises, although they were quick, technical problems blighted their potential success. Incidentally the XJ220 Racers had a better record, or raher would have had it not been for a small cat problem that forced their disqualification. Unjust in my opinion but never the less....
Look here for some more information on the F40 LM/GTE:
[url]www.qv500.com/ferrarif40p14.php[/url]
Combover
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff