|
Welshbeef
13,045 posts
67 months
|
Frik said: It was a rhetorical question. Tooling is bloody expensive, you destroy it at your peril (or if the storage costs are higher than the original manufacturing costs, which is pretty rare).
You post like you know what you're talking about, Welshbeef but then you use a word like "blueprints" which would suggest you actually don't. Which is it? I have no idea about tooling however everything will be created from CAD or very old school technical drawings. These wouldn't be destroyed so I'm guessing from technical drawings CAD it should be straight forwards to recreate edit make that it would be totally possible to recreate from those designs. One thing though why didn't BMW use the basic v12 of the F1 but in a lesser tuned state ad use it in the 860i???
|
|
|
Dusty964
5,413 posts
59 months
|
|
|
Welshbeef
13,045 posts
67 months
|
Dusty964 said: 860? Yep. They Gould have made the 860i v12 that would share block etc from the F1 clearly there would be no need for the 850i
|
|
|
Dusty964
5,413 posts
59 months
|
Welshbeef said: Yep. They Gould have made the 860i v12 that would share block etc from the F1 clearly there would be no need for the 850i Good thinking- hadn't envisaged that. Perhaps they could have gone the whole hog and lined the engine bay in gold as some sort of engine based homage???
|
|
|
RYH64E
3,084 posts
113 months
|
Welshbeef said: Frik said: It's a special car, why wouldn't they keep the tooling? Because all they need is te blueprints. No need for physical tooling as all BMW supplied was the engine and at the Ed of the day it's a v12 ablit a very special v12 but a v12 none the less Why on earth would you think they wouldn't keep the tooling? It's not as if they couldn't find the storage space. It might take a lot of time to get the various spares together, but strip down/re-assembly wouldn't take long, certainly not 12,000 hours.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Megaflow
3,338 posts
94 months
|
RYH64E said: Why on earth would you think they wouldn't keep the tooling? It's not as if they couldn't find the storage space.
It might take a lot of time to get the various spares together, but strip down/re-assembly wouldn't take long, certainly not 12,000 hours. Because, at the end of the day, it is just tooling. I come from an automotive / engine manufacturing background, and tooling gets thrown away all the time. The tooling was a capital investment in accountancy terms, as a result it gets depreciated over a set time period, most likely 10 years. When that time period comes to an end, and as far as the bean counters are concerned it has no value, therefore why are you going to spend money storing something of no value? If said asset had a large call for spares / after market, then there may be a reason to keep it as it is still generating an income, but I can't imagine BMW have sold many V12 engines since the project was stopped.l Of course all of this is speculation and the tooling may well still exist. However, I'd be very surprised if it did.
|
|
|
Mx5guy
2,982 posts
70 months
|
I am not an expert, but a lot of the stuff said here seems to be optimistic or people just guessing.
Rebuilding a car like the F1 will probably take over a year, perhaps 2. You see it with Pagani etc, the cars take a long time to be built because there are not many who can work on them even within McLaren, there is no option of using other people since it would affect the values, parts need to be waited on etc.
In regards to tooling it is often destroyed, so it is not correct to say it will have certainly been kept. I think Flemke once said they sent a letter around the owners asking about matching a batch of "x". Or it might have been elsewhere, but it shows that they will not have all the spare parts ready from the start. All the carbon will need to be checked, from what I understand using xrays. And the car will be taken to bits etc. Perhaps 3 years is a little long, but it could be realistic. Much more so than a few months.
|
|
|
RYH64E
3,084 posts
113 months
|
Megaflow said: Because, at the end of the day, it is just tooling.
I come from an automotive / engine manufacturing background, and tooling gets thrown away all the time. The tooling was a capital investment in accountancy terms, as a result it gets depreciated over a set time period, most likely 10 years. When that time period comes to an end, and as far as the bean counters are concerned it has no value, therefore why are you going to spend money storing something of no value?
If said asset had a large call for spares / after market, then there may be a reason to keep it as it is still generating an income, but I can't imagine BMW have sold many V12 engines since the project was stopped.l
Of course all of this is speculation and the tooling may well still exist. However, I'd be very surprised if it did. It isn't my area of expertise, but that would make no sense for a car like the F1 whose wealthy owners will still require spare parts in 50+ years time. If it is the case that there are no spare blocks and no existing tooling then I can't see how it would be economically viable to repair even an expensive car like the F1, tooling is expensive and when added to all of the other costs would surely be more than the value of the finished car.
|
|
|
AndrewW-G
11,968 posts
86 months
|
This maybe a daft thing to say, but as we're talking about a cast engine block, surely the "tooling" will be the parts required to make the mold for the castings . . . which would be relatively tiny and easily recreated if the cad drawings still exist.
The alternative, is to simply machine a new engine block from a large chunk of alloy
|
|
|
Welshbeef
13,045 posts
67 months
|
RYH64E said: It isn't my area of expertise, but that would make no sense for a car like the F1 whose wealthy owners will still require spare parts in 50+ years time.
If it is the case that there are no spare blocks and no existing tooling then I can't see how it would be economically viable to repair even an expensive car like the F1, tooling is expensive and when added to all of the other costs would surely be more than the value of the finished car. Your missing the point. If it was a McLaren engine they probably would have kept all the moulds. This is BMW simply a supplier who fulfilled the contract. Clearly if McLaren wanted more BMW would happily supply --- at a cost. Why should BMW keep tooling for McLaren? Unless they are being paid to hold the tooling or it was in the original contract. Also have to ask how long does tooling last? Does the tooling need servicing? How much space does it take up? What conditions does it have to be stored ie temp between a range and not damp in guessing. This is all cost for BMW without any income. Plus BMW know that they would be the only choice for replacement engines for the F1 so they have McLaren over a barrel hence new tooling required for the job. If I were McLaren I'd probably want to buy some more blocks (how many though) if they are making some anyway. But then why would McLaren want to have cash tied up in stock which may never be used and only has metal weight value if not used to replace another engine.
|
|
|
Ford 2
74 posts
33 months
|
Ok I'll just say it. Is it worth it ?
|
|
|
RYH64E
3,084 posts
113 months
|
It isn't worth arguing I know, but I find some of the comments ridiculous. 12,000 hours labour would cost over £1m, plus commissioning BMW to re-tool and make a one off engine, plus the carbon fibre work and sundry spares. If this was the case it simply wouldn't be worth fixing, NASA could send a man to the moon for less...
|
|
|
Evo
2,890 posts
123 months
|
I don't think cost has much to do with it, sentimental value of his car outweighs the cost of not having it back.
|
|
|
thegreenhell
763 posts
88 months
|
I'm not suggesting this will happen in this instance, but if there were a need for new engines in the future, and a lack of cooperation from BMW, there are a number of companies out there who could replicate a complete engine, or any other part for that matter. These are multi-million dollar cars with iconic status, so something as trivial as parts supply will not be an obstacle to their long term upkeep.
If you need a new engine block for a something like an Alfa 8C Monza you do not go to Alfa Romeo for it, do you? Companies such as Jim Stokes Workshops or Crosthwaite and Gardiner have the ability to manufacture almost any part. Even major manufacturers such as Audi and Mercedes-Benz are turning to companies such as these to manufacture new examples of their most valuable historic vehicles.
|
|
|
Megaflow
3,338 posts
94 months
|
Welshbeef said: RYH64E said: It isn't my area of expertise, but that would make no sense for a car like the F1 whose wealthy owners will still require spare parts in 50+ years time.
If it is the case that there are no spare blocks and no existing tooling then I can't see how it would be economically viable to repair even an expensive car like the F1, tooling is expensive and when added to all of the other costs would surely be more than the value of the finished car. Your missing the point. If it was a McLaren engine they probably would have kept all the moulds. This is BMW simply a supplier who fulfilled the contract. Clearly if McLaren wanted more BMW would happily supply --- at a cost. Why should BMW keep tooling for McLaren? Unless they are being paid to hold the tooling or it was in the original contract. Also have to ask how long does tooling last? Does the tooling need servicing? How much space does it take up? What conditions does it have to be stored ie temp between a range and not damp in guessing. This is all cost for BMW without any income. Plus BMW know that they would be the only choice for replacement engines for the F1 so they have McLaren over a barrel hence new tooling required for the job. If I were McLaren I'd probably want to buy some more blocks (how many though) if they are making some anyway. But then why would McLaren want to have cash tied up in stock which may never be used and only has metal weight value if not used to replace another engine. Indeed, RYH64E is missing the point. You are looking at this from a car enthusiasts point of view. Look at it from an accountants point of view: - Large pile of tooling
- Takes up significant space
- Requires careful storage as it is plain steel, so if it is not kept oiled, dry and well protected, it will soon rust
- Has very little after market / spares sales value
- Has no asset value therefore can be binned, reducing costs, with no effect on the asset value of the company
As I said before, this is total here say, the tooling may well still exist, but do not be at all surprised if it does not. I fully expect McLaren has all of the body tooling, because that is an entirely different relationship.
|
|
|
Mx5guy
2,982 posts
70 months
|
RYH64E said: It isn't my area of expertise, but that would make no sense for a car like the F1 whose wealthy owners will still require spare parts in 50+ years time.
If it is the case that there are no spare blocks and no existing tooling then I can't see how it would be economically viable to repair even an expensive car like the F1, tooling is expensive and when added to all of the other costs would surely be more than the value of the finished car. I'm not an expert, but from what I have read it is pretty common to get rid of the tooling after a while. First of all we have hindsight to see the F1 is an iconic car - I guess we knew more about it potentially reaching that status than in the 50s etc, but it doesn't mean everything will have been kept as the values could have dropped or it could have been a failure (in some ways regarding numbers built it there was less sold than predicted/ hoped for). The second thing is regarding all the parts - how many people in the time since the cars have stopped production have needed a new engine etc... It then makes keeping all the stuff (or making spares before they are needed) very expensive in regards to storage. Service parts which will be needed relatively often make more sense, but having lots of other parts that may not be needed for another 5 years perhaps less so.
|
|
|
cragswinter
6,297 posts
65 months
|
 this thread is utterly rediculous, but at the same time compulsive reading 
|
|
|
Megaflow
3,338 posts
94 months
|
cragswinter said: this thread is utterly rediculous, but at the same time compulsive reading It is. At the end of the day a truly great car is going to be repaired. Who cares how long it takes and how much it costs. 
|
|
|
Globs
11,743 posts
100 months
|
Megaflow said: cragswinter said: this thread is utterly rediculous, but at the same time compulsive reading It is. At the end of the day a truly great car is going to be repaired. Who cares how long it takes and how much it costs. Not sure rediculous is even a word but pretty much everyone cares TBH, from McLaren to Rowan to us here. The other 6.5bn people on the planet don't care though.
|
|
|
Justices
2,335 posts
33 months
|
cragswinter said: this thread is utterly rediculous, but at the same time compulsive reading Indeed. Rowan needs to release a bit of information before heads explode! Safe to say that nobody here knows concrete facts about what is going to happen and how long it will take, but that's what adds to the mystique of the F1
|
|
