RE: Paris 2012: McLaren P1
Discussion
So, McLaren claim 600kg downforce on the P1 compared to 120kg on the MP4-12C at the same speed. (They say the P1 has 5 times more.) (3)
Downforce is related to the square of the speed. (Not entirely directly, as the car will get more ground effect as it goes faster and 'squats', but for the purpose of this post it's pretty much a direct relationship.)
What does the MP4-12C generate? Sport Auto test cars in the Chrysler wind tunnel at 200kph. (1) The test result for the MP4-12C was 64kg.
Using the square law, this means the MP4-12C generates 120kg @ 170mph. (170.169mph to be precise... but I think we're taking the accuracy levels a bit too seriously.)
So the 600kg downforce figure on the P1 is at ~170mph. Question is then, how much this downforce figure actually matters?
I used to have a Juno (bit like a Radical) which is aproper aero car and generates lots of downforce. Essentially you very rarely go around corners at 170mph, so the downforce at this speed isn't too relevant. The figures at 100mph are much more realistic for track work - you don't really need downforce in a straight line (apart from braking), it's just for the corners.
Using the square law again, gives us these figures for the P1:
100mph - 207kg downforce
130mph - 350kg downforce
Now, as part of the relevance of downforce, the critical thing is not so much the level you have, but the ratio of the downforce to the mass of the car.
Let's say the P1 weighs 1300kg including driver and fluids, e.g. about 1200kg dry. At 130mph, there is 1650kg pushing the car into the track with 1300kg of mass, or about 1.27x more force downwards than mass.
To put into comparison, here are some figures for other cars (downforce at 130mph)
F1 - 1070kg
Bentley EXP Speed 8 - 1055kg
F3 - 596kg
Radical SR3 RS - 441kg
Caterham SP300R - 319kg
All of these are 'proper' aero cars. Using the Radical as a comparison point:
At 130mph, 441kg downforce, car wet including driver 675kg. Therefore 1.65x more force downwards than mass.
F1 car (OK, silly comparison!) - 2.64x more force downwards.
So in summary, the P1 is generating the downforce 'usefullness' a little under half way between something that generates no downforce/drag, and 'starter' aero car like a Radical.
I think that's pretty good, and for what it's worth, I like the looks apart from the mouth. Good job everyone at Woking!
(1) http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/sp...
(2) http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/444/supertest...
(3) McLaren press release.
Downforce is related to the square of the speed. (Not entirely directly, as the car will get more ground effect as it goes faster and 'squats', but for the purpose of this post it's pretty much a direct relationship.)
What does the MP4-12C generate? Sport Auto test cars in the Chrysler wind tunnel at 200kph. (1) The test result for the MP4-12C was 64kg.
Using the square law, this means the MP4-12C generates 120kg @ 170mph. (170.169mph to be precise... but I think we're taking the accuracy levels a bit too seriously.)
So the 600kg downforce figure on the P1 is at ~170mph. Question is then, how much this downforce figure actually matters?
I used to have a Juno (bit like a Radical) which is aproper aero car and generates lots of downforce. Essentially you very rarely go around corners at 170mph, so the downforce at this speed isn't too relevant. The figures at 100mph are much more realistic for track work - you don't really need downforce in a straight line (apart from braking), it's just for the corners.
Using the square law again, gives us these figures for the P1:
100mph - 207kg downforce
130mph - 350kg downforce
Now, as part of the relevance of downforce, the critical thing is not so much the level you have, but the ratio of the downforce to the mass of the car.
Let's say the P1 weighs 1300kg including driver and fluids, e.g. about 1200kg dry. At 130mph, there is 1650kg pushing the car into the track with 1300kg of mass, or about 1.27x more force downwards than mass.
To put into comparison, here are some figures for other cars (downforce at 130mph)
F1 - 1070kg
Bentley EXP Speed 8 - 1055kg
F3 - 596kg
Radical SR3 RS - 441kg
Caterham SP300R - 319kg
All of these are 'proper' aero cars. Using the Radical as a comparison point:
At 130mph, 441kg downforce, car wet including driver 675kg. Therefore 1.65x more force downwards than mass.
F1 car (OK, silly comparison!) - 2.64x more force downwards.
So in summary, the P1 is generating the downforce 'usefullness' a little under half way between something that generates no downforce/drag, and 'starter' aero car like a Radical.
I think that's pretty good, and for what it's worth, I like the looks apart from the mouth. Good job everyone at Woking!
(1) http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/sp...
(2) http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/444/supertest...
(3) McLaren press release.
ukaskew said:
Bit disappointed in the 'beat the Veyron SS or it's a failure' comments doing the rounds, presumably from people who will never get even remotely close to owning one, especially considering the top speed is beyond irrelevant. I would hazard a guess that the team is confident in it smashing any road car lap record that could be thrown at it.
Just look at the aero work going on, it's on a completely different level to anything we've ever seen, and presumably is the sort of stuff race car designers would love to include but for regs.
Just look at the aero work going on, it's on a completely different level to anything we've ever seen, and presumably is the sort of stuff race car designers would love to include but for regs.
The whole design just looks too busy and fussy for My liking. I'm sure it's an incredibly efficient aero machine but it's lacking the simplistic elegance of the original McLaren F1, it's almost as if it's trying too hard to stand out and be futuristic.
Also, from an aesthetic point of view, the roof-line looks too tall for the waist-line which throws the balance of the design off.
If you lower the roof-line down by @ 1/3rd, then the whole car looks far more natural and balanced.
The whole: "Not chasing headline grabbing outright top speed like the Veyron" thing is just common sense (and something Ferrari have been saying for years).
The Veyron sacrifices a lot of "real world" driver entertainment for the sake of a mega high top speed that is simply unusable (put it this way, a Boeing 747 will outrun a stunt bi-plane easily, but it's never going to be as much fun to fly!).
McLaren have realised that there is far more Kudos in creating a car that is entertaining to drive at all speeds rather than creating what is basically a road going dragster, and it's a lot cheaper too (look at the loss VW make on every Veyron!).
As I say though, the McLaren for Me lacks a natural elegance, which is something I suspect that Ferrari's forthcoming Enzo replacing F70 will have (and yes, the McLaren will most likely "trounce" the Ferrari in performance on both road and track, But as Gerhard Berger once said: "Sometimes it is better not to win............but to drive for Ferrari!" )
Also, from an aesthetic point of view, the roof-line looks too tall for the waist-line which throws the balance of the design off.
If you lower the roof-line down by @ 1/3rd, then the whole car looks far more natural and balanced.
The whole: "Not chasing headline grabbing outright top speed like the Veyron" thing is just common sense (and something Ferrari have been saying for years).
The Veyron sacrifices a lot of "real world" driver entertainment for the sake of a mega high top speed that is simply unusable (put it this way, a Boeing 747 will outrun a stunt bi-plane easily, but it's never going to be as much fun to fly!).
McLaren have realised that there is far more Kudos in creating a car that is entertaining to drive at all speeds rather than creating what is basically a road going dragster, and it's a lot cheaper too (look at the loss VW make on every Veyron!).
As I say though, the McLaren for Me lacks a natural elegance, which is something I suspect that Ferrari's forthcoming Enzo replacing F70 will have (and yes, the McLaren will most likely "trounce" the Ferrari in performance on both road and track, But as Gerhard Berger once said: "Sometimes it is better not to win............but to drive for Ferrari!" )
I think that is stunning. I dare suggest a hasty decision is not made judging the looks of a car painted that colour. A car in black will look much less "fussy", as some put it because there will not be the contrast with the side scallops and grille, a contrast that may look better on a white car? (photoshoppers - away you go..)
Re the comment above about the roofline: The F1 was the same, it just wasn't immediately noticable. Viewed from head on both cars appear to have a "tall" windscreen but I suspect that "tall" will not be the first word on your lips when standing next the P1..
Re the comment above about the roofline: The F1 was the same, it just wasn't immediately noticable. Viewed from head on both cars appear to have a "tall" windscreen but I suspect that "tall" will not be the first word on your lips when standing next the P1..
edb49 said:
So, McLaren claim 600kg downforce on the P1 compared to 120kg on the MP4-12C at the same speed. (They say the P1 has 5 times more.) (3)
Downforce is related to the square of the speed. (Not entirely directly, as the car will get more ground effect as it goes faster and 'squats', but for the purpose of this post it's pretty much a direct relationship.)
What does the MP4-12C generate? Sport Auto test cars in the Chrysler wind tunnel at 200kph. (1) The test result for the MP4-12C was 64kg.
Using the square law, this means the MP4-12C generates 120kg @ 170mph. (170.169mph to be precise... but I think we're taking the accuracy levels a bit too seriously.)
So the 600kg downforce figure on the P1 is at ~170mph. Question is then, how much this downforce figure actually matters?
I used to have a Juno (bit like a Radical) which is aproper aero car and generates lots of downforce. Essentially you very rarely go around corners at 170mph, so the downforce at this speed isn't too relevant. The figures at 100mph are much more realistic for track work - you don't really need downforce in a straight line (apart from braking), it's just for the corners.
Using the square law again, gives us these figures for the P1:
100mph - 207kg downforce
130mph - 350kg downforce
Now, as part of the relevance of downforce, the critical thing is not so much the level you have, but the ratio of the downforce to the mass of the car.
Let's say the P1 weighs 1300kg including driver and fluids, e.g. about 1200kg dry. At 130mph, there is 1650kg pushing the car into the track with 1300kg of mass, or about 1.27x more force downwards than mass.
To put into comparison, here are some figures for other cars (downforce at 130mph)
F1 - 1070kg
Bentley EXP Speed 8 - 1055kg
F3 - 596kg
Radical SR3 RS - 441kg
Caterham SP300R - 319kg
All of these are 'proper' aero cars. Using the Radical as a comparison point:
At 130mph, 441kg downforce, car wet including driver 675kg. Therefore 1.65x more force downwards than mass.
F1 car (OK, silly comparison!) - 2.64x more force downwards.
So in summary, the P1 is generating the downforce 'usefullness' a little under half way between something that generates no downforce/drag, and 'starter' aero car like a Radical.
I think that's pretty good, and for what it's worth, I like the looks apart from the mouth. Good job everyone at Woking!
(1) http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/sp...
(2) http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/444/supertest...
(3) McLaren press release.
good postDownforce is related to the square of the speed. (Not entirely directly, as the car will get more ground effect as it goes faster and 'squats', but for the purpose of this post it's pretty much a direct relationship.)
What does the MP4-12C generate? Sport Auto test cars in the Chrysler wind tunnel at 200kph. (1) The test result for the MP4-12C was 64kg.
Using the square law, this means the MP4-12C generates 120kg @ 170mph. (170.169mph to be precise... but I think we're taking the accuracy levels a bit too seriously.)
So the 600kg downforce figure on the P1 is at ~170mph. Question is then, how much this downforce figure actually matters?
I used to have a Juno (bit like a Radical) which is aproper aero car and generates lots of downforce. Essentially you very rarely go around corners at 170mph, so the downforce at this speed isn't too relevant. The figures at 100mph are much more realistic for track work - you don't really need downforce in a straight line (apart from braking), it's just for the corners.
Using the square law again, gives us these figures for the P1:
100mph - 207kg downforce
130mph - 350kg downforce
Now, as part of the relevance of downforce, the critical thing is not so much the level you have, but the ratio of the downforce to the mass of the car.
Let's say the P1 weighs 1300kg including driver and fluids, e.g. about 1200kg dry. At 130mph, there is 1650kg pushing the car into the track with 1300kg of mass, or about 1.27x more force downwards than mass.
To put into comparison, here are some figures for other cars (downforce at 130mph)
F1 - 1070kg
Bentley EXP Speed 8 - 1055kg
F3 - 596kg
Radical SR3 RS - 441kg
Caterham SP300R - 319kg
All of these are 'proper' aero cars. Using the Radical as a comparison point:
At 130mph, 441kg downforce, car wet including driver 675kg. Therefore 1.65x more force downwards than mass.
F1 car (OK, silly comparison!) - 2.64x more force downwards.
So in summary, the P1 is generating the downforce 'usefullness' a little under half way between something that generates no downforce/drag, and 'starter' aero car like a Radical.
I think that's pretty good, and for what it's worth, I like the looks apart from the mouth. Good job everyone at Woking!
(1) http://www.germancarforum.com/community/threads/sp...
(2) http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/444/supertest...
(3) McLaren press release.
Mini1275 said:
Crazy considering it's on a road car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff