RE: McLaren MP4-12C, Now With Added 'Phwoarr'
Discussion
toppstuff said:
I have to say that EVO are not doing themselves any favours. Frankly, they come across as rather self-important and smug rather than independent champions of the performance car and driver.
And I must say that they singularly fail to "get" McLaren and its ethos. For me, this is the most disappointing thing of all.
There is room in the market ( one hopes ) for a performance car that is the antithesis of Ferrari.
I think McLaren is looking to fill that gap, providing a car with the daily usability of a 911 while setting new standards of performance and safety. In this respect, McLaren seem to have nailed it on the first attempt. It is very disappointing that the motoring press fails to recognise this.
Back to the car - The changes clearly amount to little more than a bit of tweaking. In a more sane world, changes like these may even have been implemented without a fanfare. Instead, EVO and their ilk have driven the narrative of the story for their own ends. In the desire to get a controversial cover headline, they have created a story and appointed themselves as the story teller and the hero.
Top Gear is often berated for its inaccuracy and for Clarkson's nonsense ( quite rightly , his take on the XKR S and GTR was inaccurate, inconsistent and complete rubbish) but it seems to me that EVO and the "proper" motoring journalists are not that different. Under the earnest analysis and supposed journalistic integrity, I think they are just as inconsistent.
Perhaps we should remember that they are journalists first and foremost. But when they make themselves part of the story , then the game is up. EVO has lost credibility in my opinion.
Defo - EVO = Self important. I only get it occasionally for the loo. Hardly Motorsport is it!And I must say that they singularly fail to "get" McLaren and its ethos. For me, this is the most disappointing thing of all.
There is room in the market ( one hopes ) for a performance car that is the antithesis of Ferrari.
I think McLaren is looking to fill that gap, providing a car with the daily usability of a 911 while setting new standards of performance and safety. In this respect, McLaren seem to have nailed it on the first attempt. It is very disappointing that the motoring press fails to recognise this.
Back to the car - The changes clearly amount to little more than a bit of tweaking. In a more sane world, changes like these may even have been implemented without a fanfare. Instead, EVO and their ilk have driven the narrative of the story for their own ends. In the desire to get a controversial cover headline, they have created a story and appointed themselves as the story teller and the hero.
Top Gear is often berated for its inaccuracy and for Clarkson's nonsense ( quite rightly , his take on the XKR S and GTR was inaccurate, inconsistent and complete rubbish) but it seems to me that EVO and the "proper" motoring journalists are not that different. Under the earnest analysis and supposed journalistic integrity, I think they are just as inconsistent.
Perhaps we should remember that they are journalists first and foremost. But when they make themselves part of the story , then the game is up. EVO has lost credibility in my opinion.
Civpilot said:
I love this....
Why have a small orange outline showing a rough shape of the car to show that a door is open when you can have a fully rendered image taken from a really good angle
. It's those little things that show the thought going into this car (not implying that thought does not go into others)
True, but wouldn't the rush of air and shower of rain be a bit of a giveaway that the doors are that wide open...?Why have a small orange outline showing a rough shape of the car to show that a door is open when you can have a fully rendered image taken from a really good angle
. It's those little things that show the thought going into this car (not implying that thought does not go into others)Just thinking...
toppstuff said:
I have to say that EVO are not doing themselves any favours. Frankly, they come across as rather self-important and smug rather than independent champions of the performance car and driver.
And I must say that they singularly fail to "get" McLaren and its ethos. For me, this is the most disappointing thing of all.
There is room in the market ( one hopes ) for a performance car that is the antithesis of Ferrari.
I think McLaren is looking to fill that gap, providing a car with the daily usability of a 911 while setting new standards of performance and safety. In this respect, McLaren seem to have nailed it on the first attempt. It is very disappointing that the motoring press fails to recognise this.
Back to the car - The changes clearly amount to little more than a bit of tweaking. In a more sane world, changes like these may even have been implemented without a fanfare. Instead, EVO and their ilk have driven the narrative of the story for their own ends. In the desire to get a controversial cover headline, they have created a story and appointed themselves as the story teller and the hero.
Top Gear is often berated for its inaccuracy and for Clarkson's nonsense ( quite rightly , his take on the XKR S and GTR was inaccurate, inconsistent and complete rubbish) but it seems to me that EVO and the "proper" motoring journalists are not that different. Under the earnest analysis and supposed journalistic integrity, I think they are just as inconsistent.
Perhaps we should remember that they are journalists first and foremost. But when they make themselves part of the story , then the game is up. EVO has lost credibility in my opinion.
tend to agree with the above, well said - ultimately they want to sell car magazines first, be objective second. i guess i can understand that philosophy, but i would make my own decision based on driving both before handing over £200k (necessary amount to properly spec eith the Mac or Fezza)And I must say that they singularly fail to "get" McLaren and its ethos. For me, this is the most disappointing thing of all.
There is room in the market ( one hopes ) for a performance car that is the antithesis of Ferrari.
I think McLaren is looking to fill that gap, providing a car with the daily usability of a 911 while setting new standards of performance and safety. In this respect, McLaren seem to have nailed it on the first attempt. It is very disappointing that the motoring press fails to recognise this.
Back to the car - The changes clearly amount to little more than a bit of tweaking. In a more sane world, changes like these may even have been implemented without a fanfare. Instead, EVO and their ilk have driven the narrative of the story for their own ends. In the desire to get a controversial cover headline, they have created a story and appointed themselves as the story teller and the hero.
Top Gear is often berated for its inaccuracy and for Clarkson's nonsense ( quite rightly , his take on the XKR S and GTR was inaccurate, inconsistent and complete rubbish) but it seems to me that EVO and the "proper" motoring journalists are not that different. Under the earnest analysis and supposed journalistic integrity, I think they are just as inconsistent.
Perhaps we should remember that they are journalists first and foremost. But when they make themselves part of the story , then the game is up. EVO has lost credibility in my opinion.
toppstuff said:
I have to say that EVO are not doing themselves any favours. Frankly, they come across as rather self-important and smug rather than independent champions of the performance car and driver.
And I must say that they singularly fail to "get" McLaren and its ethos. For me, this is the most disappointing thing of all.
There is room in the market ( one hopes ) for a performance car that is the antithesis of Ferrari.
I think McLaren is looking to fill that gap, providing a car with the daily usability of a 911 while setting new standards of performance and safety. In this respect, McLaren seem to have nailed it on the first attempt. It is very disappointing that the motoring press fails to recognise this.
Back to the car - The changes clearly amount to little more than a bit of tweaking. In a more sane world, changes like these may even have been implemented without a fanfare. Instead, EVO and their ilk have driven the narrative of the story for their own ends. In the desire to get a controversial cover headline, they have created a story and appointed themselves as the story teller and the hero.
Top Gear is often berated for its inaccuracy and for Clarkson's nonsense ( quite rightly , his take on the XKR S and GTR was inaccurate, inconsistent and complete rubbish) but it seems to me that EVO and the "proper" motoring journalists are not that different. Under the earnest analysis and supposed journalistic integrity, I think they are just as inconsistent.
Perhaps we should remember that they are journalists first and foremost. But when they make themselves part of the story , then the game is up. EVO has lost credibility in my opinion.
You sir have taken the words out of my mouth, well said!And I must say that they singularly fail to "get" McLaren and its ethos. For me, this is the most disappointing thing of all.
There is room in the market ( one hopes ) for a performance car that is the antithesis of Ferrari.
I think McLaren is looking to fill that gap, providing a car with the daily usability of a 911 while setting new standards of performance and safety. In this respect, McLaren seem to have nailed it on the first attempt. It is very disappointing that the motoring press fails to recognise this.
Back to the car - The changes clearly amount to little more than a bit of tweaking. In a more sane world, changes like these may even have been implemented without a fanfare. Instead, EVO and their ilk have driven the narrative of the story for their own ends. In the desire to get a controversial cover headline, they have created a story and appointed themselves as the story teller and the hero.
Top Gear is often berated for its inaccuracy and for Clarkson's nonsense ( quite rightly , his take on the XKR S and GTR was inaccurate, inconsistent and complete rubbish) but it seems to me that EVO and the "proper" motoring journalists are not that different. Under the earnest analysis and supposed journalistic integrity, I think they are just as inconsistent.
Perhaps we should remember that they are journalists first and foremost. But when they make themselves part of the story , then the game is up. EVO has lost credibility in my opinion.
jellison said:
efo - EVO = Self important. I only get it occasionally for the loo. Hardly Motorsport is it!
+1They went very po-faced a few years ago and started to believe that their opinion was definitive. What I hate more than anything - and this is something Autocar are terrible for too - is dressing up the subjective as if it was fact. It's fine to have an opinion, and to express that with your direct experience, but don't try and pretend it is objective.
I find it interesting that Top Gear have recently started slating 'the Nurburgring' as some omnipresent car-ruining monster, considering they and others seem to test cars on tracks disproportionately to road, which is most likely not how they will be used for the majority of the time.
Cars makers cannot win, whatever they do, and it must be hugely frustrating to have imbued a car with myriad virtues only for a journo to slag it off based on prejudice (like the XKR-S this week).
Hats off to McLaren for taking this approach and was great to read what had been done when my copy of EVO dropped through the letterbox yesterday. As its their first attempt in recent times to launch a car for the public its always going to be a learning process to understand what Joe Bloggs and the road testers want whereas Ferrai etc have been doing it constantly for some time. Shows they really do want to please their customers so must bode well for those who buy one and want that excellent level of support from the manafacturer thats expected.
As Chris Harris wrote a few months back, this car for McLaren is essentially the 1.1 Fiesta of the range, so can't wait to see the following range toppers and new models that are to follow.
Stunning car and for me the one i'd pick over the 458 should I be in that position but looking forward to how McLaren get on with the road, and spin-off race car programmes
As Chris Harris wrote a few months back, this car for McLaren is essentially the 1.1 Fiesta of the range, so can't wait to see the following range toppers and new models that are to follow.
Stunning car and for me the one i'd pick over the 458 should I be in that position but looking forward to how McLaren get on with the road, and spin-off race car programmes
LongLiveTazio said:
I find it interesting that Top Gear have recently started slating 'the Nurburgring' as some omnipresent car-ruining monster, considering they and others seem to test cars on tracks disproportionately to road, which is most likely not how they will be used for the majority of the time.
Top Gear or James May? Or are they the same thing? I see the presenters as individuals, and just 'cos one of them says something doesn't mean it's the 'Top Gear' view. James has always been the 'slow, engineery one who can't drive', the straight man if you like, while the others have been the more traditional 'OMG look at that spoiler...this car is sooo fast' type characters. It gives a nice balance. Edited by varsas on Tuesday 19th July 12:28
varsas said:
Top Gear or James May? Or are they the same thing? I see the presenters as individuals, and just 'cos one of them says something doesn't mean it's the 'Top Gear' view.
They present themselves as individuals and a collective as/when it suits them and then say "it's entertainment" to get away with the bulls
t they spout. I honestly don't know how they justify some of the stuff they do on a personal, moral level. I know "it's only cars" but I *love* cars and would be horrified to slag something off just for my own gain, as was the case this week with the Jag.seawise said:
toppstuff said:
I have to say that EVO are not doing themselves any favours. Frankly, they come across as rather self-important and smug rather than independent champions of the performance car and driver.
...
tend to agree with the above, well said - ultimately they want to sell car magazines first, be objective second. i guess i can understand that philosophy, but i would make my own decision based on driving both before handing over £200k (necessary amount to properly spec eith the Mac or Fezza)...
At the end of the day these cars are indulgencies, not A to B transport, so the heart rules just as much as the head in the buying process. The roadtesters from all three mags used the same criteria when drawing their conclusions.
As I said in another thread I'd love a McLaren. I want to desire this car but after reading the initial test I didn't, and I found that a real shame. If these mods work it would go some way to reversing this.
This is great news for anyone with their name on the order books. A fantastic and somewhat surprising response from McLaren and I must applaud them for it, although it is crucial that they get this car right if they want to carry sufficient credibility to launch the inevitable spyder and hot GT3 versions in the future.
Personally, I love the 12C and would certainly have one over a 458.
Personally, I love the 12C and would certainly have one over a 458.
Alfa numeric said:
It wasn't just EVO though was it? Autocar and Car came to the same conclusion. Evo put the Ferrari ahead because it rode better when you were driving in a spirited manner, had better steering, better noise and was more engaging. To say they just did it to create a controversy is unfair.
At the end of the day these cars are indulgencies, not A to B transport, so the heart rules just as much as the head in the buying process. The roadtesters from all three mags used the same criteria when drawing their conclusions.
As I said in another thread I'd love a McLaren. I want to desire this car but after reading the initial test I didn't, and I found that a real shame. If these mods work it would go some way to reversing this.
And yet the same mags rate the GT3 RS 4.0 as being 'more involving', having a more authentic sound, more feelsome steering, a 'proper driver's car'... but I wonder if they'd actually choose it over the 458 if they had the cold, hard cash in their hand. I see it as different strokes for different folks, not that one car is objectively better than the other. All the comparisons I've seen are splitting hairs and don't really take in to account the cars as everyday objects, their overall usability, the image, the service from the dealers, running costs over the course of ownership, etc. At the end of the day these cars are indulgencies, not A to B transport, so the heart rules just as much as the head in the buying process. The roadtesters from all three mags used the same criteria when drawing their conclusions.
As I said in another thread I'd love a McLaren. I want to desire this car but after reading the initial test I didn't, and I found that a real shame. If these mods work it would go some way to reversing this.
Considering quite a few actual Ferrari owners seem to prefer the Scuderia to the 458 I would take the mags' views with a hefty pinch of salt.
Civpilot said:
I love this....
Why have a small orange outline showing a rough shape of the car to show that a door is open when you can have a fully rendered image taken from a really good angle . It's those little things that show the thought going into this car (not implying that thought does not go into others)
That is quite simply brilliant, I love little touches like that in cars.Why have a small orange outline showing a rough shape of the car to show that a door is open when you can have a fully rendered image taken from a really good angle
. It's those little things that show the thought going into this car (not implying that thought does not go into others)Regardless of how good / soulest the MP4 is, none of the Journo's would ever dream of allowing it to win a group test against a 458. Ferrari would never allow them to borrow a car ever again! Lets not's forget that Ferrari are renowned for having a team of engineers follow the group test around making "adjustments" to optimize the car for each stage of the test. They wont even allow customer cars to be used in group tests as they're significately slower than the tweaked test cars. If a mag was to borrow a customers car and they found out, the chances are they would get black listed.
Here's a interesting article which explains this further.
http://jalopnik.com/5760248/how-ferrari-spins
Here's a interesting article which explains this further.
http://jalopnik.com/5760248/how-ferrari-spins
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff