RE: McLaren P1: powertrain
Discussion
FisiP1 said:
As quoted by the post above, prospective owners have been promised that the P1 will be 'far faster' than the Pagani Zonda R.
The Zonda R coincidentally laps the nurburgring in almost exactly the same time as the fastest vairant of the SR8, and faster than the standard version of it.
The zonda's nurburgring laptime was set on slicks. The radical was on road legal tyres. Over 13 miles that will make a HUGE difference.The Zonda R coincidentally laps the nurburgring in almost exactly the same time as the fastest vairant of the SR8, and faster than the standard version of it.
Dblue said:
The battle between the P1, F150 and 918 Spyder is going to be mouth watering.
F150 to have an 800ps V12 + 150ps electric boost, lots of active aero
918 about 750ps + up to 200 from the em
P1 about the same + maybe the most advanced aero of all
Exciting times.F150 to have an 800ps V12 + 150ps electric boost, lots of active aero
918 about 750ps + up to 200 from the em
P1 about the same + maybe the most advanced aero of all
In the 80s/90s we had the the Ferrari F40, Porsche 959 and the Mclaren F1.
2000s we had the Ferrari Enzo, Porsche Carrera GT and the McMerc Mclaren SLR
Now we have the Ferrari F70/F150, Porsche 918 and the Mclaren P1
Hope the future is just as exciting
boxerTen said:
What it is not, is a car aimed squarely at performance in the manner of the F1.
You're going to have to help me out here, which bits exactly are not performance orientated? And do you think it will be slower than an F1, both in acceleration and track times? (MclAuto have already announced they are not chasing top speed records with this car)What an awesome car. Some amazing technology here and great lateral thinking.
It seems some people are scared of change. They could have built another F1, but why bother? Been there, done that, so why not build a hybrid car that might possibly blows the socks off all the old-school hyper cars?
I can't believe people are criticising the option of having an extra 180hp at the press of a button, and suggesting that this will be lethal, as if it will be unleashed instantaneously! This is a modern hypercar we are talking about, not some dodgy nitrous kit on an escort RS Turbo. There's a good chance McLaren have though that bit through.
However the best bit of news for all you miserable technology haters is this though- you will never own one. 'I guess you just got lucky', as an American might say...
It seems some people are scared of change. They could have built another F1, but why bother? Been there, done that, so why not build a hybrid car that might possibly blows the socks off all the old-school hyper cars?
I can't believe people are criticising the option of having an extra 180hp at the press of a button, and suggesting that this will be lethal, as if it will be unleashed instantaneously! This is a modern hypercar we are talking about, not some dodgy nitrous kit on an escort RS Turbo. There's a good chance McLaren have though that bit through.
However the best bit of news for all you miserable technology haters is this though- you will never own one. 'I guess you just got lucky', as an American might say...
Great technology, but… KERS works for F1 cars because of the colossal braking events, a few times per lap, to put power back into the battery pack, for another 6 seconds of KERS use on the next lap. A road car, away from the track, is not driven in the same systematic fashion and subsequently, there will be no battery power left after a short period of time using full power.
If I had the money to spend on a hypercar, it would be one that always had maximum power available, as long as there was petrol in the tank. With the McLaren P1, as soon as the batteries were exhausted, it would regress into a top-heavy MP4-12C.
I would have so much preferred the McLaren P1 to have been a 5.7 litre, 12 cylinder twin-turbo with around, let’s say, 1,105hp and 795lb ft and no KERS...
If I had the money to spend on a hypercar, it would be one that always had maximum power available, as long as there was petrol in the tank. With the McLaren P1, as soon as the batteries were exhausted, it would regress into a top-heavy MP4-12C.
I would have so much preferred the McLaren P1 to have been a 5.7 litre, 12 cylinder twin-turbo with around, let’s say, 1,105hp and 795lb ft and no KERS...
pejph said:
Great technology, but… KERS works for F1 cars because of the colossal braking events, a few times per lap, to put power back into the battery pack, for another 6 seconds of KERS use on the next lap. A road car, away from the track, is not driven in the same systematic fashion and subsequently, there will be no battery power left after a short period of time using full power.
If I had the money to spend on a hypercar, it would be one that always had maximum power available, as long as there was petrol in the tank. With the McLaren P1, as soon as the batteries were exhausted, it would regress into a top-heavy MP4-12C.
I would have so much preferred the McLaren P1 to have been a 5.7 litre, 12 cylinder twin-turbo with around, let’s say, 1,105hp and 795lb ft and no KERS...
They'll have thought this through.If I had the money to spend on a hypercar, it would be one that always had maximum power available, as long as there was petrol in the tank. With the McLaren P1, as soon as the batteries were exhausted, it would regress into a top-heavy MP4-12C.
I would have so much preferred the McLaren P1 to have been a 5.7 litre, 12 cylinder twin-turbo with around, let’s say, 1,105hp and 795lb ft and no KERS...
There's a great video on DRIVE right now about different types of ERS systems, particularly talking about using air tanks to harvest pneumatic pressure.
pejph said:
Great technology, but… KERS works for F1 cars because of the colossal braking events, a few times per lap, to put power back into the battery pack, for another 6 seconds of KERS use on the next lap. A road car, away from the track, is not driven in the same systematic fashion and subsequently, there will be no battery power left after a short period of time using full power.
Couple of points:1) capturing full brake power is impossible (the system would have to be able to deal with 1000kW spikes) so actually "road car braking" is much much easier to deal with and recover into chemical energy in the battery
2) With the Emachine connected to the engine when you back off, you can leave the engine at a high output and absorb that positive torque into the battery, effectively maintaining SOC.
3) The limiting factors in track time are principally threefold;
a) thermal: can the battery, inverter and motor system cope with the thermal loads, and for how long
b) How big is the fuel tank in the car? typically, high power road cars can only manage approx 20mins at ultra high loads such as on track.
c) At lower vehicle speeds, the Eboosting is only ever transient, because the tractive friction limit is lower than just the engine only output, hence once again you can maintain SOC by transfering engine power to the battery via the Emachine/inverter.
pejph said:
Great technology, but… KERS works for F1 cars because of the colossal braking events, a few times per lap, to put power back into the battery pack, for another 6 seconds of KERS use on the next lap. A road car, away from the track, is not driven in the same systematic fashion and subsequently, there will be no battery power left after a short period of time using full power.
If I had the money to spend on a hypercar, it would be one that always had maximum power available, as long as there was petrol in the tank. With the McLaren P1, as soon as the batteries were exhausted, it would regress into a top-heavy MP4-12C.
I would have so much preferred the McLaren P1 to have been a 5.7 litre, 12 cylinder twin-turbo with around, let’s say, 1,105hp and 795lb ft and no KERS...
I'm not sure it works quite as the F1 system does, set up for a road going car.If I had the money to spend on a hypercar, it would be one that always had maximum power available, as long as there was petrol in the tank. With the McLaren P1, as soon as the batteries were exhausted, it would regress into a top-heavy MP4-12C.
I would have so much preferred the McLaren P1 to have been a 5.7 litre, 12 cylinder twin-turbo with around, let’s say, 1,105hp and 795lb ft and no KERS...
As far as the way that cars in this market go, its all about the wow factor. Its utterly irrelevant whether it has low emissions, ridiculous doors, stupendously expensive servicing or engine insulation in pure gold. They are bought as sculptures, extravagant toys that live gilded lives in humidified garages making minimal excursions into the real world. In that respect its only headline grabbing stats and looks and rarity that really matters
FisiP1 said:
As quoted by the post above, prospective owners have been promised that the P1 will be 'far faster' than the Pagani Zonda R.
The Zonda R coincidentally laps the nurburgring in almost exactly the same time as the fastest vairant of the SR8, and faster than the standard version of it.
People need to re-calibrate their idea of what makes for a fast track car with the latest gen of hypercar. The advantages offered by the instantaneous and vast torque of electric motors and huge active aero panels is, at first, unbelievable.
I think people need to remember how quick a 650kg mini LMP car with a flat floor, massive diffuser and rear wing is The Zonda R coincidentally laps the nurburgring in almost exactly the same time as the fastest vairant of the SR8, and faster than the standard version of it.
People need to re-calibrate their idea of what makes for a fast track car with the latest gen of hypercar. The advantages offered by the instantaneous and vast torque of electric motors and huge active aero panels is, at first, unbelievable.
It's just physics. Again, I'd love to be proved wrong. It wasn't the SR8 RX that set that 6:44. God knows what time something like that would set.
jcl said:
FisiP1 said:
As quoted by the post above, prospective owners have been promised that the P1 will be 'far faster' than the Pagani Zonda R.
The Zonda R coincidentally laps the nurburgring in almost exactly the same time as the fastest vairant of the SR8, and faster than the standard version of it.
People need to re-calibrate their idea of what makes for a fast track car with the latest gen of hypercar. The advantages offered by the instantaneous and vast torque of electric motors and huge active aero panels is, at first, unbelievable.
I think people need to remember how quick a 650kg mini LMP car with a flat floor, massive diffuser and rear wing isThe Zonda R coincidentally laps the nurburgring in almost exactly the same time as the fastest vairant of the SR8, and faster than the standard version of it.
People need to re-calibrate their idea of what makes for a fast track car with the latest gen of hypercar. The advantages offered by the instantaneous and vast torque of electric motors and huge active aero panels is, at first, unbelievable.
It's just physics. Again, I'd love to be proved wrong. It wasn't the SR8 RX that set that 6:44. God knows what time something like that would set.
CraigyMc said:
boxerTen said:
A few reasons for a new F1 come to mind:
1. People would buy it in droves.
2. It likely wouldn't cost a whole lot more than the 12C.
3. You can't buy anything similar (dry the Huayra is 250kg heavier so not in the same class).
4. A modern n/a 6 litre V12 can produce 700-750 bhp in road tune without the turbo lag.
5. The F1 was light, under 1000kg in racing guise. I'll bet McLaren could make it even lighter today.
6. The F1 was good enough to win Le Mans, will the P1?
1. People would buy it in droves.
2. It likely wouldn't cost a whole lot more than the 12C.
3. You can't buy anything similar (dry the Huayra is 250kg heavier so not in the same class).
4. A modern n/a 6 litre V12 can produce 700-750 bhp in road tune without the turbo lag.
5. The F1 was light, under 1000kg in racing guise. I'll bet McLaren could make it even lighter today.
6. The F1 was good enough to win Le Mans, will the P1?
- Undoubtedly
- Nonsense
- Obviously. On the other hand, the car would have to compy with todays regulations and that's not light or easy.
- Name one?
- No doubt, but not road-legally.
- It's not diesel, the active aero is banned, the electric system is banned. They coundn't enter it without radically changing it (even the 12c racer is radically different than the road car)
4: Ferrari's F12, 6.3 litres, 730 bhp. And I was being deliberately conservative. Ferrari's 4.5 litre V8 already achieves 125 bhp/litre. A 6 litre V12, with its 12% smaller cylinders, should be about 4% better than that, i.e. 130 bhp/litre, which equates to 780 bhp.
Dblue said:
boxerTen said:
4. A modern n/a 6 litre V12 can produce 700-750 bhp in road tune without the turbo lag.
A modern version of the V12 wouldn't comply with future environmental legislation and as I said above, modern turbocharged engines have almost no lag and lots more low down torque. My issue is they just can't sound as good.
Max_Torque said:
boxerTen said:
What it is not, is a car aimed squarely at performance in the manner of the F1.
You're going to have to help me out here, which bits exactly are not performance orientated? And do you think it will be slower than an F1, both in acceleration and track times? (MclAuto have already announced they are not chasing top speed records with this car)The P1 will of course be quicker than the F1, even with its extra weight, but remember the F1 is 20 years old.
So the batteries, motors and other hybrid gubbins add 100kg and bring 180hp to the party. In terms of power to weight, they add a lot more power than they do weight- at 1800hp/ton the system can't fail to improve the cars power to weight ratio. Factor in the related technologies they add to the car and I fail to see why anyone would want to get rid of them?
This car will never be a N/A V12 supercar in the same way that Kiera Knightly will never be Marilyn Monroe. But the world is better for having the variety.
This car will never be a N/A V12 supercar in the same way that Kiera Knightly will never be Marilyn Monroe. But the world is better for having the variety.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff