RE: Paris 2012: McLaren P1

RE: Paris 2012: McLaren P1

Author
Discussion

Donkey62

227 posts

164 months

Sunday 30th September 2012
quotequote all
Having seen it in the plastic its proportions are bang on and extreme detailing i think as result of mp4 rightful critics of being too dull. As a Radical owner real areo is so much fun than outright top speed and bhp, if P1 is true at making active areo at accessible road speeds then it's goto be pretty special drive none of this feathering the throttle as in other supercars when things get twitchy.

AreOut

3,658 posts

160 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
Sofoklis said:
A McLaren P1 marketing video in the future based on cutting edge technology and pure speed and having Jenson Button behind the wheel doesn't quite fit the bill, does it?


for me it does, I look at the F1 racing in a bit different way

and this car is gonna be fkn amazing on track

donteatpeople

829 posts

273 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
Sofoklis said:
tommy vercetti said:
Where are the rear headlights?
What car has rear headlights? Headlights are at the front of a car and tailights are on the rear. Rear headlamps would be illegal as they emit white light.
You never seen a car reverse?

smilo996

2,745 posts

169 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
I love the MP12. But is this a step forward or backwards?
Compared to the original F1 built over 20 years ago it is:
Longer, wider and heavier yet only has 2 seats.
It will likely not do much more than 243mph but will have a charged engine to do it.
The CD is 0.34 compared to 0.32 in the old car.
The rear end looks aweful
It uses KERS, yet will the fuel economy be much better because it is heavier and less slippery.
And that is without discussing the 16oxz of gold leaf, uniqu seating position etc.

Come on McLaren, progress please. It does go to show how much of a genius Murray is though.

NotNormal

2,357 posts

213 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
smilo996 said:
I love the MP12. But is this a step forward or backwards?
Compared to the original F1 built over 20 years ago it is:
Longer, wider and heavier yet only has 2 seats.
It will likely not do much more than 243mph but will have a charged engine to do it.
The CD is 0.34 compared to 0.32 in the old car.
The rear end looks aweful
It uses KERS, yet will the fuel economy be much better because it is heavier and less slippery.
And that is without discussing the 16oxz of gold leaf, uniqu seating position etc.

Come on McLaren, progress please. It does go to show how much of a genius Murray is though.
Your points above are all flawed for the reason you could never build a car like the F1 now due to the H&S laws and regulations that are in force today for car manafacturers.

Time has moved on, why do people not understand this confused

CraigyMc

16,243 posts

235 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
It might be interesting to list the things the F1 has (or is missing!) that you wouldn't be allowed to do today for a type-approved car:

Airbags are mandatory
ABS, Stability control and Traction control are mandatory
Euro5 emissions compliance is mandatory

What am I missing? (I guessed at the ABS ones by the way - although I can think of a single recent car which comes without - the M600.

C

Leebo310

174 posts

138 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
foxhounduk said:
The spoiler looks tacky; leave it out fellas.
So remove part of the engineering that gives it the massive downforce and increased braking capabilty?!?


E38Ross

34,847 posts

211 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
smilo996 said:
I love the MP12. But is this a step forward or backwards?
Compared to the original F1 built over 20 years ago it is:
Longer, wider and heavier yet only has 2 seats.
It will likely not do much more than 243mph but will have a charged engine to do it.
The CD is 0.34 compared to 0.32 in the old car.
The rear end looks aweful
It uses KERS, yet will the fuel economy be much better because it is heavier and less slippery.
And that is without discussing the 16oxz of gold leaf, uniqu seating position etc.

Come on McLaren, progress please. It does go to show how much of a genius Murray is though.
or:

you've missed the point of this completely. well done. you don't think this will absolutely trounce an F1 around a circuit? even the MP4-12C does that and this will be much quicker. fking right this will be progress you muppet!

smile

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
smilo996 said:
I love the MP12. But is this a step forward or backwards?
Compared to the original F1 built over 20 years ago it is:
Longer, wider and heavier yet only has 2 seats.
It will likely not do much more than 243mph but will have a charged engine to do it.
The CD is 0.34 compared to 0.32 in the old car.
The rear end looks aweful
It uses KERS, yet will the fuel economy be much better because it is heavier and less slippery.
And that is without discussing the 16oxz of gold leaf, uniqu seating position etc.

Come on McLaren, progress please. It does go to show how much of a genius Murray is though.
So in summary, Mclaren should have designed, developed and built a car that they couldn't actually legally sell to anyone? They already have one of those, it's their Formula 1 car.

BTW, as far as i know, no CO2 figures have ever been published for the old F1, as it pre-dates that type of testing, but comparison with similar cars (engine size, gearing etc) would suggest it would put out approx 600g/km. Have a go at selling that in 2012 if you fancy a challange.........

Streetrod

6,468 posts

205 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
smilo996 said:
I love the MP12. But is this a step forward or backwards?
Compared to the original F1 built over 20 years ago it is:
Longer, wider and heavier yet only has 2 seats.
It will likely not do much more than 243mph but will have a charged engine to do it.
The CD is 0.34 compared to 0.32 in the old car.
The rear end looks aweful
It uses KERS, yet will the fuel economy be much better because it is heavier and less slippery.
And that is without discussing the 16oxz of gold leaf, uniqu seating position etc.

Come on McLaren, progress please. It does go to show how much of a genius Murray is though.
Your complete misunderstanding of what McLaren are looking to do here has to be commended, well done that man

E38Ross

34,847 posts

211 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
Leebo310 said:
foxhounduk said:
The spoiler looks tacky; leave it out fellas.
So remove part of the engineering that gives it the massive downforce and increased braking capabilty?!?
yes. everyone on PH knows far better than McLaren, you know

Sofoklis

102 posts

141 months

Monday 1st October 2012
quotequote all
donteatpeople said:
Sofoklis said:
tommy vercetti said:
Where are the rear headlights?
What car has rear headlights? Headlights are at the front of a car and tailights are on the rear. Rear headlamps would be illegal as they emit white light.
You never seen a car reverse?
Il take that as a joke then, shall I?

Trikster

818 posts

201 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
Got the call on Tuesday to spec mine ready for the order banks to open. Had a letter of intent in since the 2000 concept and deposit since last Aug.

Still undecided between V6S or V8 though, have asked dealer if he can get torque and power graphs for each engine to at least give me a better clue...

I was on my way to the airport when he rang so gave him a V6S spec but calling in when I get back to talk further...

E38Ross

34,847 posts

211 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Da fuq?
V6S?
V6 supercharged at a guess

CraigyMc

16,243 posts

235 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
Trikster said:
Got the call on Tuesday to spec mine ready for the order banks to open. Had a letter of intent in since the 2000 concept and deposit since last Aug.

Still undecided between V6S or V8 though, have asked dealer if he can get torque and power graphs for each engine to at least give me a better clue...

I was on my way to the airport when he rang so gave him a V6S spec but calling in when I get back to talk further...
I really, really hope you haven't signed a McLaren group NDA.

C

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
F-Type chaps. He has his threads mixed up.

CraigyMc

16,243 posts

235 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
DJRC said:
F-Type chaps. He has his threads mixed up.
This would explain it, and the engine discussion makes sense too.

...although McLaren are rumoured to be doing a 911-class car next year, so I'd not bet against a V6 of some sort in a McLaren (but probably not the P1!).

C

DJRC

23,563 posts

235 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
CraigyMc said:
DJRC said:
F-Type chaps. He has his threads mixed up.
This would explain it, and the engine discussion makes sense too.

...although McLaren are rumoured to be doing a 911-class car next year, so I'd not bet against a V6 of some sort in a McLaren (but probably not the P1!).

C
Or you could just look in his posting history and see his humerous comments on F-Types threads.

CraigyMc

16,243 posts

235 months

Thursday 11th October 2012
quotequote all
DJRC said:
CraigyMc said:
DJRC said:
F-Type chaps. He has his threads mixed up.
This would explain it, and the engine discussion makes sense too.

...although McLaren are rumoured to be doing a 911-class car next year, so I'd not bet against a V6 of some sort in a McLaren (but probably not the P1!).

C
Or you could just look in his posting history and see his humerous comments on F-Types threads.
I thought I made it quite clear that it's obvious he's talking about an F-type. Didn't I?

He's definately talking about an F-type.