Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)

[flemke]

Storer said:

IMO the best looking Ferrari was never badged as a Ferrari. The 246 Dino GTB (not the GTS, which I don't like) due to the loss of the window in the buttress.




All those lovely curves and virtually no straight edges/lines.

Ever since car designers chased aerodynamic down force their designs have lost a lot of their beauty.



Paul

Funnily enough, these days it's hard to find a Dino that doesn't have a prancing horse badge stuck on the back.

Dino is a pretty car, although I'd submit that such things as the SWB, 275 GTB, Daytona, and many of the barchettas they built in the '50s give it a run for its money.

Agreed on your point that chasing aero DF usually spoils a design. The irony is that it is usually irrelevant to real-world performance.

[flemke]

hondafanatic said:

flemke said:

Chim said:

Lots of stuff

Lots of contrary stuff

I really hope this doesn't descend into the usual PH-esque argument as I'm quite enjoying the different view points and find myself sitting on the fence a little...I never really minded the F12 but when it's stuck next to older models I can see how it's odd looking and not as cohesive.

Just bear in mind, Hondafanatic, that the point of departure was someone's suggestion that the NSX is unattractive.

[isaldiri]

Chim said:

The net result of this is a very impressive 123kg of downforce at 126mph with a net drag coefficient of less than 0.3. All in then hardly a random "gouge" in the door because someone thought it looked quite neat.

..
The downforce created is quite extraordinary and credit to the aerodynamic engineers
...

Ferrari also claimed the 458 generated 140kg of downforce at 200kmh and 300+kg for the Enzo at similar speed and over 700kg flat out..... and I believe SportAuto found the 458 to generate lift overall and the Enzo was found to have very significantly less downforce than claimed when Jim Glickenhaus was running windtunnel tests on the P4/5.

[Chim]

flemke said:

Funnily enough, these days it's hard to find a Dino that doesn't have a prancing horse badge stuck on the back.

Dino is a pretty car, although I'd submit that such things as the SWB, 275 GTB, Daytona, and many of the barchettas they built in the '50s give it a run for its money.

Agreed on your point that chasing aero DF usually spoils a design. The irony is that it is usually irrelevant to real-world performance.

Thats a bit rich coming from a P1 owner, and i quote

We set the aerodynamic targets very early,’ explains Dan Parry-Williams, McLaren’s chief design engineer. ‘We looked at race cars and worked out what was possible. We targeted 600kg of downforce, and we wanted it around the speed that we’ve got it [from 161mph]. Of course, the problem with downforce is that you can have too much of it – if you double the speed you quadruple the aerodynamic downforce and you soon reach a point where you’ve got more than you can handle. That’s the great thing about active aerodynamics – we can just shed that downforce and manage it at high speed. And we can manage the dynamics of the car through a corner – we can change the aero balance depending on whether you’re in the braking phase or mid-corner or accelerating out.



Now those HUGE "gouges" in the side, remind me why they are there again.

[flemke]

Chim said:

Where to start with this, well first off I'm not a fan of Kool-aid, more a fresh orange and lemonade type of person, I find it far more refreshing. As to engine placement, do you seriously think this was an arbitrary move by of Ferrari and they undertook it just for the fun of it. My point on this it was to show the thinking in car lineage that goes with the model, the designers spend a huge amount of time looking at previous design specs of the car in order to model and capture aspects that can be tracked back in the history to give both feel relevance to what they are trying to create.

Back on the "gouges" though, your contention here is that they serve no purpose and are merely an aesthetic add on that drive no value other than to alter design. Really, you appear to be a clever fellow, surely you must have gave this at least a little arbitrary research prior to making this statement. Apparently not though as you would have quickly found out that the panels are sculpted with regard to a particular and unique philosophy, that being 'aerodynamics via subtraction" this entails removing wind flow from one area and placing it elsewhere, in this case from around the windscreen it is then diverted through the arching channels that you can see cut into the bonnet, this leads the air over the wheel arches and on the concave at the doors, thats "gouges" to you. The net result of this is a very impressive 123kg of downforce at 126mph with a net drag coefficient of less than 0.3. All in then hardly a random "gouge" in the door because someone thought it looked quite neat.

As to why my assertion that concave's in the car have been common for many years now is "risible" is quite beyond my powers of interpretation, I have pointed out the concave's on on many cars, you have kindly provided pictorial evidence of this, the fact that, as an individual, you not do like the current concave does not remove the fact that they are but an evolution of many other cars that incorporated them.

On the "press release" statement, I will concede that these are terms that often used flippantly, I have though been fortunate enough to drive this particular car and many other incarnations of the GT mark, some have disappointed, 550 being an example, others though have excelled. Almost all though feel uniquely Ferrari with the F12 being no exception. Do not get me wrong here, I am no Ferrari fan boy, in fact I have never actually taken the plunge to ownership, preferring instead the subtle experience of Aston and Bentley, this though does not prevent me from appreciating the car and it's design challenges and history, it is an evolution that this company has managed better than any other car company on the planet, no other manufacture of a premium brand has even came close to continued success and longevity of Ferrari.

- You had suggested that the looks of the F12 were somehow the result of the car's having a transaxle, which Ferrari first used in the 275 GTB. Yes, the F12 has a transaxle, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the looks of the car. This is not a controversial fact.

- I think I once heard something about cars and aerodynamics, but I can't recall what it was....
Out of the total of 123kg of downforce, how much do you think is being generated by the door gouges? How essential is that incremental amount? Make a real difference, does it? I'm not talking about the apertures behind the front wings, which feature these days on many cars, but about only those gouges. What do you reckon they contribute on their own?

- I did not write that it was risible to say that concavities have been on the sides of cars for many years. Manifestly they have been there.
What I said was risible was to try to find any aesthetic similarity or kinship between the side of a 456 and the side of an F12. Yes, both cars have apertures behind the front wings, and the sides of both come in at some point, but they also both have four wheels and a roof. It would be difficult for the sides of the two cars to be more different from each other.

[flemke]

anniesdad said:

Chim said:

Oh come on, you are seriously trying to say that the F12 is hideous, it may have some slight flaws to its character, prefer the 599 myself, to say its hideous though is simply ridiculous.

No need to thank me for the reply by the way.

Neither the F12 nor 599 look anything like as nice as this...



For me Ferrari's "design language" went awry when they started trying to create downforce with those 599 buttresses.

Flemke, I wonder what do you make of the 488GTB?

What I simply do not understand, Steve, is why the only images Ferrari have released are cutaway drawings that show the plumbing of the rear wing air intake, but there are no pictures that show the finished bodywork. Weird, eh?

[flemke]

SpeckledJim said:

Chim said:

Back on the "gouges" though, your contention here is that they serve no purpose and are merely aesthetic add on that drive no value other to alter design. Really, you appear to be a clever fellow, surly you must have gave this at least a little arbitrary research prior to making this statement. apparently not though as you would have quickly found out that the panels are sculpted with regard to a particular and unique philosophy, that being 'aerodynamics via subtraction" this entails removing wind flow from one area and placing it elsewhere, in this case from around the windscreen it is then diverted through the arching channels that you can see cut into the bonnet, this leads the air over the wheel arches on on the concave at the doors , thats "gouges" to you. The net result of this is a very impressive 123kg of downforce at 126mph with a net drag coefficient of less than 0.3. All in then hardly a random "gouge" in the door because someone thought it looked quite neat.

But if it's such a no-brainer engineering-lead thing to do, why has nobody else ever done it? Why doesn't the new 488 have it?

I think Ferrari have correctly realised the market for 'ohhh, cooool' is now much larger than the market for elegance. Hence the disconnected buttresses on the 599, and hence the disconnected wings on the F12.

People like holes in Ferraris, because the Ford Fiesta doesn't have holes in it.

And also because they go with the holes in their heads.

[flemke]

isaldiri said:

Chim said:

The net result of this is a very impressive 123kg of downforce at 126mph with a net drag coefficient of less than 0.3. All in then hardly a random "gouge" in the door because someone thought it looked quite neat.

..
The downforce created is quite extraordinary and credit to the aerodynamic engineers
...

Ferrari also claimed the 458 generated 140kg of downforce at 200kmh and 300+kg for the Enzo at similar speed and over 700kg flat out..... and I believe SportAuto found the 458 to generate lift overall and the Enzo was found to have very significantly less downforce than claimed when Jim Glickenhaus was running windtunnel tests on the P4/5.

I am shocked, simply SHOCKED!

[Chim]

flemke said:

- You had suggested that the looks of the F12 were somehow the result of the car's having a transaxle, which Ferrari first used in the 275 GTB. Yes, the F12 has a transaxle, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the looks of the car. This is not a controversial fact.

- I think I once heard something about cars and aerodynamics, but I can't recall what it was....
Out of the total of 123kg of downforce, how much do you think is being generated by the door gouges? How essential is that incremental amount? Make a real difference, does it? I'm not talking about the apertures behind the front wings, which feature these days on many cars, but about only those gouges. What do you reckon they contribute on their own?

- I did not write that it was risible to say that concavities have been on the sides of cars for many years. Manifestly they have been there.
What I said was risible was to try to find any aesthetic similarity or kinship between the side of a 456 and the side of an F12. Yes, both cars have apertures behind the front wings, and the sides of both come in at some point, but they also both have four wheels and a roof. It would be difficult for the sides of the two cars to be more different from each other.

I think that the expression "stop digging now" is becoming very apt here. On your first point, I suggested nothing of the kind. I was pointing out the historic linkages between cars and the lengths that the designer go to to research and them in order to maintain the purity of the line.

As to the linkage between the concave on the doors and the relevant downforce not being a significant factor……. …….sorry, could not help myself there. Of course it is, every pound of downforce makes a difference, the spread is also essential, please pop your head round the door and have a look at your own car, the downforce produced by the P1 is astonishing, this is aided in no small way by the massive "gouges" on the side of the car. Without the inclusion of this downforce your P1 would currently be in orbit somewhere near the space station by now due to its power to weight ratio.

As to the rest of my points, these you appear to have conceded so i will join with the majority of contributors here and thank you for this…..Sorry, cheap dig but could not resist

[flemke]

Chim said:

flemke said:

Funnily enough, these days it's hard to find a Dino that doesn't have a prancing horse badge stuck on the back.

Dino is a pretty car, although I'd submit that such things as the SWB, 275 GTB, Daytona, and many of the barchettas they built in the '50s give it a run for its money.

Agreed on your point that chasing aero DF usually spoils a design. The irony is that it is usually irrelevant to real-world performance.

Thats a bit rich coming from a P1 owner, and i quote

We set the aerodynamic targets very early,’ explains Dan Parry-Williams, McLaren’s chief design engineer. ‘We looked at race cars and worked out what was possible. We targeted 600kg of downforce, and we wanted it around the speed that we’ve got it [from 161mph]. Of course, the problem with downforce is that you can have too much of it – if you double the speed you quadruple the aerodynamic downforce and you soon reach a point where you’ve got more than you can handle. That’s the great thing about active aerodynamics – we can just shed that downforce and manage it at high speed. And we can manage the dynamics of the car through a corner – we can change the aero balance depending on whether you’re in the braking phase or mid-corner or accelerating out.



Now those HUGE "gouges" in the side, remind me why they are there again.

Nice try, son, but you're quoting Dan Parry-Williams, you're not quoting me.

- I've never written on here one word of praise for the P1's downforce, which does not interest me.

- On this thread I have specifically criticised the appearance of the P1's doors, which are the least attractive part of the entire design.

- One thing the P1 clearly isn't is a GT. It is either a sports car or a trackday car. Sacrificing form for function at least fits the purpose of the car, unlike on a GT car such as the F12.

Despite its unattractive doors, the P1 could be a lot worse. It could look like a LaFerrari.

[AlmostUseful]

I think it's fair to say that it doesn't matter who says what in these times, all that matters is that he who brings out the "son" wins the argument.

Nothing like a bit of condescension to bring it down to my level!

[SpeckledJim]

Chim said:

SpeckledJim said:

Chim said:

Back on the "gouges" though, your contention here is that they serve no purpose and are merely aesthetic add on that drive no value other to alter design. Really, you appear to be a clever fellow, surly you must have gave this at least a little arbitrary research prior to making this statement. apparently not though as you would have quickly found out that the panels are sculpted with regard to a particular and unique philosophy, that being 'aerodynamics via subtraction" this entails removing wind flow from one area and placing it elsewhere, in this case from around the windscreen it is then diverted through the arching channels that you can see cut into the bonnet, this leads the air over the wheel arches on on the concave at the doors , thats "gouges" to you. The net result of this is a very impressive 123kg of downforce at 126mph with a net drag coefficient of less than 0.3. All in then hardly a random "gouge" in the door because someone thought it looked quite neat.

But if it's such a no-brainer engineering-lead thing to do, why has nobody else ever done it? Why doesn't the new 488 have it?

I think Ferrari have correctly realised the market for 'ohhh, cooool' is now much larger than the market for elegance. Hence the disconnected buttresses on the 599, and hence the disconnected wings on the F12.

People like holes in Ferraris, because the Ford Fiesta doesn't have holes in it.

Don't be ridiculous, they have realised the market for keeping the car on the road when it turns a corner, you can not keep adding ridiculous amounts of horsepower to a car without addressing traction, the best way to achieve this is downforce, that is why you are seeing this. The downforce created is quite extraordinary and credit to the aerodynamic engineers.

As to the 488 "not having them" have you actually seen the 488.

Edited by Chim on Monday 2nd March 17:04

Umm, yes. It doesn't have them. Does it?

Nor to my knowledge does any other sportscar.

So, no-brainer engineering requirement, or attention grabbing gimmick?

[Chim]

flemke said:

Chim said:

flemke said:

Funnily enough, these days it's hard to find a Dino that doesn't have a prancing horse badge stuck on the back.

Dino is a pretty car, although I'd submit that such things as the SWB, 275 GTB, Daytona, and many of the barchettas they built in the '50s give it a run for its money.

Agreed on your point that chasing aero DF usually spoils a design. The irony is that it is usually irrelevant to real-world performance.

Thats a bit rich coming from a P1 owner, and i quote

We set the aerodynamic targets very early,’ explains Dan Parry-Williams, McLaren’s chief design engineer. ‘We looked at race cars and worked out what was possible. We targeted 600kg of downforce, and we wanted it around the speed that we’ve got it [from 161mph]. Of course, the problem with downforce is that you can have too much of it – if you double the speed you quadruple the aerodynamic downforce and you soon reach a point where you’ve got more than you can handle. That’s the great thing about active aerodynamics – we can just shed that downforce and manage it at high speed. And we can manage the dynamics of the car through a corner – we can change the aero balance depending on whether you’re in the braking phase or mid-corner or accelerating out.



Now those HUGE "gouges" in the side, remind me why they are there again.

Nice try, son, but you're quoting Dan Parry-Williams, you're not quoting me.

- I've never written on here one word of praise for the P1's downforce, which does not interest me.

- On this thread I have specifically criticised the appearance of the P1's doors, which are the least attractive part of the entire design.

- One thing the P1 clearly isn't is a GT. It is either a sports car or a trackday car. Sacrificing form for function at least fits the purpose of the car, unlike on a GT car such as the F12.

Despite its unattractive doors, the P1 could be a lot worse. It could look like a LaFerrari.

Did you really just me call me "son". Wow, sorry sir, I can only apologise for challenging your assertion, I will now find my place again and pop off to the naughty boy corner.

Come on Flemke, up your game a bit here, no need to drag it down to the condescending level. I am challenging your views on an open forum, given the level of respect and adoration that is given to you hear with regards your views I would have expected far better from you when they are challenged.

As to the P1 being a sport car and thus deserving of such features and downforce derived styling, the F12 produces 730bhp married to 509 lb=ft of torque, it gets to 60 in 3 seconds and travels on to a quoted 213mph. I think you will find that a car with these figures and weighing this much needs all the downforce that it can possible generate in order to avoid placing its occupant into the nearest field at the first bend it encountered

[Chim]

SpeckledJim said:

Umm, yes. It doesn't have them. Does it?

Nor to my knowledge does any other sportscar.

So, no-brainer engineering requirement, or attention grabbing gimmick?

Sorry, your to stupid to argue with

[Sway]

Regarding Ferrari's downforce claims, I seem to remember reading that they quoted the effect of all the little downforce generating addenda, but crucially didn't quote the whole car end result.

So the diffuser, splitter, holes n gouges add up to x [i] negative lift [\i] whilst the car without them created y positive lift. They only quoted x, not y - x...

May be wrong, what definitely isn't is that Ferrari's marketing claims have rarely lived up to independent verification of a stock car. After all, just how amazing is it that every single new car they produce is quicker round Fiorano - even when there's only a few years and a couple of hundred thousand pounds retail in it (was it the Enzo that was claimed to be slower than the 430?) something like that which completely ignored massive power to weight and footprint differences, and put all the difference in 'F1 inspired' traction control accessible from a 'F1 inspired' dial on the steering wheel...

[E65Ross]

Chim said:

SpeckledJim said:

Umm, yes. It doesn't have them. Does it?

Nor to my knowledge does any other sportscar.

So, no-brainer engineering requirement, or attention grabbing gimmick?

Sorry, your to stupid to argue with

You're

[Chim]

E65Ross said:

Chim said:

SpeckledJim said:

Umm, yes. It doesn't have them. Does it?

Nor to my knowledge does any other sportscar.

So, no-brainer engineering requirement, or attention grabbing gimmick?

Sorry, your to stupid to argue with

You're

Doh

[Chim]

Sway said:

Regarding Ferrari's downforce claims, I seem to remember reading that they quoted the effect of all the little downforce generating addenda, but crucially didn't quote the whole car end result.

So the diffuser, splitter, holes n gouges add up to x [i] negative lift [\i] whilst the car without them created y positive lift. They only quoted x, not y - x...

May be wrong, what definitely isn't is that Ferrari's marketing claims have rarely lived up to independent verification of a stock car. After all, just how amazing is it that every single new car they produce is quicker round Fiorano - even when there's only a few years and a couple of hundred thousand pounds retail in it (was it the Enzo that was claimed to be slower than the 430?) something like that which completely ignored massive power to weight and footprint differences, and put all the difference in 'F1 inspired' traction control accessible from a 'F1 inspired' dial on the steering wheel...

Not sure Sway, certainly the marketing department have perhaps embellished the figures over the years, same though applies to the rest of them, willy waving is part of the game

[isaldiri]

Sway said:

May be wrong, what definitely isn't is that Ferrari's marketing claims have rarely lived up to independent verification of a stock car. ..

Surely not, this is Ferrari who have never been known to produce more than the promised number of cars on a limited production run like for the Enzo/599 GTO.... oh wait...

P.S even for them surely it'll be a bit much to claim the downforce produced by the little bits added on rather than the whole car...?!

[Sway]

Chim said:

Not sure Sway, certainly the marketing department have perhaps embellished the figures over the years, same though applies to the rest of them, willy waving is part of the game

Of course it does, all part of the game.

Ferrari have refined the art well beyond most though - their blacklisting of both journalists and owners, etc. Having Fiorano is an awesome benefit too, always a headline figure when a new car comes out, yet about as believable as the Top Gear power board. Top Gear aren't asking for a quarter mill though.

I understand where you're coming from regarding the F12's power to weight - for a GT it's staggering. Do those vents/gouges make as much difference to the overall downforce as they do on the aesthetics - very, very unlikely. It is a very visual statement of how aero is king, which ultimately is marketing.

Even in the unlikely event they make a big difference to the performance, the whole crux was that they assist in making the car ugly - which they do. Purposeful is probably the best that can be attributed to the car, but pretty? No. Too many conflicting shapes that draw the eye all over the place, and prevent any flow to the overall view. Compare to the 456, which has an elegant flow from front to rear, with every highlight supporting that...