Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
thegreenhell said:
Mikeeb said:
flemke said:
ex1 said:
flemke said:
Unfortunately, as the values of these things go up, the "cost" (impact on market value) of additional miles on a car can be dear. Even though mine is by F1 standards a higher-mileage car, I figure a round trip from UK to the Nordschleife will cost me north of £20k in depreciation. I can hardly complain, because the overall effect has been very positive, but it does affect one's thinking.
Perhaps a better way to look at it would be to take the the total cost of ownership so far, deduct it from the the amount its appreciated and workout the cost/profit per mile! I am guessing you didn't buy it as an investment so why let the appreciation effect the pleasure of ownership.
Was it cumulatively worth "X" to me to have driven the car when and where I have done? Yes. If it were possible, would I do that total thing again? Absolutely.
But the richness of all those experiences was probably not pre-ordained. Maybe there was a lot of luck involved, and my next 35,000 miles would be relatively uneventful, or at least the highlights of the first 35k would be unrepeatable.
Another factor is that, if you drive something a lot, you tend to take it for granted regardless of how rarefied it may be. In the last few years owing to several factors I have driven my F1 only a little, a fraction as much as I drove it years ago. Yet at those times in recent years when I have driven the car, the occasion and experience felt more exhilarating than they did during my higher-mileage days.
If Christmas came once a week, how special would it feel?
One thing I am more certain of is that if I were in the position where I was afraid of using an object for its intended purpose due to the effects of that simple use on its value then it would be time to think about selling up and using something less precious for that purpose.
Regarding a more abstract, broader VALUE, it's harder to know.
A car that has not been driven for 20 years is going to need a lot of work done to it before it can be driven, and even then is unlikely to be as nice to drive as a car that has been driven a reasonable amount and looked after, properly.
As one example, Gordon has said that the F1's engine does not reach full operating potential until it's got something IRO 20,000 miles on it. That level of usage, he reckons, will add approx 30 BHP to the engine. Would one rather have those BHP? I think one would!
As to whether one would keep a car (but not drive it) or rather would sell it, one of the factors is going to be whether, if one does not need the cash, one expects the value to increase. I agree with people that it is a lot nicer to drive a rare car on public roads at least occasionally in order to "share" it with the public, but the fact is that there are a number of headaches that come with taking a quite valuable and visible car out for a drive. Not least amongst them is that it tends to put the driver in a bit of a spotlight. If that person is a private person, the spotlight is the last thing that one wants.
Edited by flemke on Monday 8th June 23:23
jamies30 said:
Joe911 said:
I'm not sure I buy the notion that driving an F1 reduces it's value. I don't think there are sufficient data points to clearly show a trend and I think the appreciation far outweighs the potential hit for driving the car.
It's a shame if it's valid - if the car has become too valuable to use, then it's also become sort-of worthless. 
Storer said:
With low interest rates and most other investments not performing too well, along with the fact that you are not taxed on the 'profit' when you sell your 'depreciating asset', all come together to over inflate the vintage/specialist car market.
It has gone too far when a keen owner like Flemke weighs up the cost of adding miles to a car he loves.
I may be selfish but I hope the bottom drops out of the classic/specialist car market soon (I don't think it will happen any time soon though, unfortunately!) so that those of us with (much) smaller bank balances, but a passion for the cars, are able to own something that has spent most of it's life sat in a storage facility.
Paul
Although there is no capital gains tax on profits from sale of an automobile in UK, in other jurisdictions there are cap gains taxes. For example, in the US, which is the biggest market, the tax rate is 31.8% It has gone too far when a keen owner like Flemke weighs up the cost of adding miles to a car he loves.
I may be selfish but I hope the bottom drops out of the classic/specialist car market soon (I don't think it will happen any time soon though, unfortunately!) so that those of us with (much) smaller bank balances, but a passion for the cars, are able to own something that has spent most of it's life sat in a storage facility.
Paul
I'm sure it will have been posted before, but every fan should take the opportunity to read the sales brochure for RA's F1 while it's still up on the website;
http://www.taylorandcrawley.com/downloads/car_54.p...
http://www.taylorandcrawley.com/downloads/car_54.p...
Petrus1983 said:
I'd imagine someone has passed away, been put away or has gone very bankrupt. I'd also imagine that this collection within the right circles is well know of, giving credibility (or not) to potential buyers. By all accounts my father has a very disirable yacht - the moment he passes though check onto boatshop24!
I think the owner of that collection is Don Wallace, don't think he's dead. And you'd hope he hasn't run out of money.vtgts300kw said:
I think the owner of that collection is Don Wallace, don't think he's dead. And you'd hope he hasn't run out of money.
Thanks for this - just looked up who he is and his car collection is quite well documented - seems like he's just having a minor spring clean rather than selling up completely!! 
Morningside said:
Looks like its been a good investment.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3115331/Ro...
I'm just having a chuckle at that article which notes he crashed it twice; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3115331/Ro...
'Everyone is very pleased with the sale. There was interest from around the world and it has gone to a British buyer who will drive it like Rowan did.'
227bhp said:
I'm just having a chuckle at that article which notes he crashed it twice;
'Everyone is very pleased with the sale. There was interest from around the world and it has gone to a British buyer who will drive it like Rowan did.'
So it'll be back at McLaren in several disconnected pieces...'Everyone is very pleased with the sale. There was interest from around the world and it has gone to a British buyer who will drive it like Rowan did.'
ex1 said:
flemke said:
Not least amongst them is that it tends to put the driver in a bit of a spotlight. If that person is a private person, the spotlight is the last thing that one wants.
Yes. I suspect the yellow SLS allows you to blend into the scenery.
In any case, that is def the best colour for the car, which was why I chose it.
vtgts300kw said:
I think the owner of that collection is Don Wallace, don't think he's dead. And you'd hope he hasn't run out of money.
I believe a number of those cars were owned by Don Wallace. These cars seem to have been acquired in the last couple of years. I suspect this 'portfolio' has been put together by some kind of fund, and it is now cashing out. Might be calling top of the market, who knows...Tenebrae said:
Flemke,
(Apologies if already answered) Do luggage bays of an F1 ever get hot from the exhaust? Harry Metcalfe mentioned a 'major shampoo explosion' in his Zonda C12 luggage for this reason.
Cheers!
In my experience, not at all.(Apologies if already answered) Do luggage bays of an F1 ever get hot from the exhaust? Harry Metcalfe mentioned a 'major shampoo explosion' in his Zonda C12 luggage for this reason.
Cheers!
See that small vertical slot at the bottom front of the luggage locker door, just behind the gap between the pax door and the locker door?
That slot is a vent for the locker. It was put there to eliminate moisture accumulation in the locker, but the resulting air flow aids removal of any warm air.
I have carried liquids in the lockers many times, including bottles of fizzy drinks, and have never had a problem.
flemke said:
That slot is a vent for the locker. It was put there to eliminate moisture accumulation in the locker, but the resulting air flow aids removal of any warm air.
Thanks! I was expecting that lockers are perhaps air-conditioned, but look what a simple solution can do! Also, maybe a gold-plated engine bay helps a bit, too. Edited by Tenebrae on Tuesday 23 June 16:05
flemke said:
I think it's different from the F1 road car/GTR situation.
First, many if not all of the F1 GTR conversions were done by guys who did not have F1 road cars. The road cars have gone through periods when none was for sale, so if you wanted an F1 to drive on the road you had to buy a GTR and convert it.
Next, one might have wanted an F1 road car that looked like a racing car, which would lead one to take a GTR and run it with its genuine historic livery. That would be a lot better than slapping a livery on a road car in order to pretend it had raced.
Also, there were some people who wanted a GTR in order to make it look like an LM, which have almost always been impossible to buy, and that was the motivation for their conversions of GTRs that included the "Papaya" paint.
Furthermore, for most of their life the F1 GTRs have cost buyers a meaningful amount less than the road cars did; buying a GTR was a less expensive way to become an F1 owner.
I appreciate that in the last couple of years there has been a movement to talk up the values of GTRs, a movement which I am told has been promulgated by a car dealer who by coincidence happens to own a GTR (surprise!), on the questionable logic that the GTRs have racing provenance. I agree that they have racing history (as in, most of them have been thrashed and crashed), but - apart from the Le Mans winner which has a very special history - how many people care that a car may have won a round of the BPR Series? Is that bit of historical trivia in itself worth millions of dollars? It wouldn't be to me!
The next thing to consider is that the F1 GTRs (apart from long-tails) were designed as road cars and themselves "converted" into racing cars in the first place. Crucially, the chassis pick-up points, which one could not alter, were the correct height for a road car, not for a racing car. By converting a GTR to a road car, one was, so to speak, correcting a fundamental shortcoming in the GTRs.
I am not saying that the F1 GTR made a good road car. They are fantastic to drive, but the unbearable noise, absence of a/c, inappropriate instrumentation, and compromised steering lock mean that, much more than the F1 road car, the converted GTR is good for only brief blasts on carefully selected roads.
Although the F1 GTR is not a "good" road car, one can see the logic in converting one into a road car.
The P1 GTR is quite different.
First, there are already "enough" P1 road cars available. Indeed, if you bought a P1 GTR you already owned a P1 road car. The motive for converting a P1 GTR to road car could not have been because that was your only route to obtaining a P1 for the road.
Second, in contrast to the F1 GTR, the P1 GTR has been optimised for the track. Ride height and suspension geometry, for example, are too low (both practically and legally) for public road use. By doing the conversion, one would be making the car less good, as opposed to improving it by taking it back to where it was designed to be.
Third, when you pay your £2m for the P1 GTR, you are not getting twice as much car for your money. A lot of that extra cost (over the road car) is going to the track day programme, receiving bespoke instruction from McLaren, spending time in the factory simulator, etc.
By doing a road car conversion, you are making the car less suited to the end for which you have just paid the £1m premium.
Fourth, I would ask, "What exactly about the P1 road car would one make better for road use?" The only thing that I would like to see is for them to have got rid of the electric stuff, but that - the primary opportunity for weight savings - is still present in the GTR. Yes, the P1 GTR weighs a bit less, but that is largely owing to lack of a/c, lack of information/sound system - stuff that most people actually want in a road car.
The P1 GTR has no racing "provenance" of any kind, of course, and one expects that it never will.
Is the point of converting a P1 GTR for road use to make it faster on the road? That would make no sense whatsoever. One is literally unable to utilise even half of the P1 road car's capability on the road, so why would you possibly want more?
Is it to make the P1 more of a "driver's car"? One might aspire to that, but Chris Goodwin and the team made a huge effort to produce a great driver's car in the road car. I believe that the major feedback systems in the road car are the same in the GTR; it is not clear what is to be gained in terms of driver enjoyment by taking a GTR and converting it.
That leaves me with what I think is the primary motivation one might have for converting a P1 GTR for road use: appearance.
Yes, the GTR, as designed, looks better than the road car does. That GTR rear wing is great. (I am assuming that in its standard form that wing will pass SVA, although I am aware of no other road-legal car with rear wing endplates that stick out so far.) Although I own some cars with rear wings, I always feel a bit embarrassed when I drive them, as fixed wings sprouting up from the rear deck of a road car always seem so pretentious. This is one of the reasons why I never went for the HDK on my F1, although it a pure design sense I accept that it looks pretty good.
How the GTR will look after conversion, with a higher ride height and bigger gaps between the tyres and the wheel arches, will be another matter. There is no way that lifting the P1 GTR, which must be done for road use, will not detract from the GTR's mean, purposeful look.
The P1 and P1 GTR were essentially parallel projects: one for the road, as best as McLaren could do it, and one for the track. To take McLaren's best effort for the track and attempt to transmogrify it into something better than the factory's best effort for the road seems a bit of a fool's errand. By doing that conversion, in a single stroke one would be spending a lot of money to create a less-good road car and a less-good track car.
First, many if not all of the F1 GTR conversions were done by guys who did not have F1 road cars. The road cars have gone through periods when none was for sale, so if you wanted an F1 to drive on the road you had to buy a GTR and convert it.
Next, one might have wanted an F1 road car that looked like a racing car, which would lead one to take a GTR and run it with its genuine historic livery. That would be a lot better than slapping a livery on a road car in order to pretend it had raced.
Also, there were some people who wanted a GTR in order to make it look like an LM, which have almost always been impossible to buy, and that was the motivation for their conversions of GTRs that included the "Papaya" paint.
Furthermore, for most of their life the F1 GTRs have cost buyers a meaningful amount less than the road cars did; buying a GTR was a less expensive way to become an F1 owner.
I appreciate that in the last couple of years there has been a movement to talk up the values of GTRs, a movement which I am told has been promulgated by a car dealer who by coincidence happens to own a GTR (surprise!), on the questionable logic that the GTRs have racing provenance. I agree that they have racing history (as in, most of them have been thrashed and crashed), but - apart from the Le Mans winner which has a very special history - how many people care that a car may have won a round of the BPR Series? Is that bit of historical trivia in itself worth millions of dollars? It wouldn't be to me!
The next thing to consider is that the F1 GTRs (apart from long-tails) were designed as road cars and themselves "converted" into racing cars in the first place. Crucially, the chassis pick-up points, which one could not alter, were the correct height for a road car, not for a racing car. By converting a GTR to a road car, one was, so to speak, correcting a fundamental shortcoming in the GTRs.
I am not saying that the F1 GTR made a good road car. They are fantastic to drive, but the unbearable noise, absence of a/c, inappropriate instrumentation, and compromised steering lock mean that, much more than the F1 road car, the converted GTR is good for only brief blasts on carefully selected roads.
Although the F1 GTR is not a "good" road car, one can see the logic in converting one into a road car.
The P1 GTR is quite different.
First, there are already "enough" P1 road cars available. Indeed, if you bought a P1 GTR you already owned a P1 road car. The motive for converting a P1 GTR to road car could not have been because that was your only route to obtaining a P1 for the road.
Second, in contrast to the F1 GTR, the P1 GTR has been optimised for the track. Ride height and suspension geometry, for example, are too low (both practically and legally) for public road use. By doing the conversion, one would be making the car less good, as opposed to improving it by taking it back to where it was designed to be.
Third, when you pay your £2m for the P1 GTR, you are not getting twice as much car for your money. A lot of that extra cost (over the road car) is going to the track day programme, receiving bespoke instruction from McLaren, spending time in the factory simulator, etc.
By doing a road car conversion, you are making the car less suited to the end for which you have just paid the £1m premium.
Fourth, I would ask, "What exactly about the P1 road car would one make better for road use?" The only thing that I would like to see is for them to have got rid of the electric stuff, but that - the primary opportunity for weight savings - is still present in the GTR. Yes, the P1 GTR weighs a bit less, but that is largely owing to lack of a/c, lack of information/sound system - stuff that most people actually want in a road car.
The P1 GTR has no racing "provenance" of any kind, of course, and one expects that it never will.
Is the point of converting a P1 GTR for road use to make it faster on the road? That would make no sense whatsoever. One is literally unable to utilise even half of the P1 road car's capability on the road, so why would you possibly want more?
Is it to make the P1 more of a "driver's car"? One might aspire to that, but Chris Goodwin and the team made a huge effort to produce a great driver's car in the road car. I believe that the major feedback systems in the road car are the same in the GTR; it is not clear what is to be gained in terms of driver enjoyment by taking a GTR and converting it.
That leaves me with what I think is the primary motivation one might have for converting a P1 GTR for road use: appearance.
Yes, the GTR, as designed, looks better than the road car does. That GTR rear wing is great. (I am assuming that in its standard form that wing will pass SVA, although I am aware of no other road-legal car with rear wing endplates that stick out so far.) Although I own some cars with rear wings, I always feel a bit embarrassed when I drive them, as fixed wings sprouting up from the rear deck of a road car always seem so pretentious. This is one of the reasons why I never went for the HDK on my F1, although it a pure design sense I accept that it looks pretty good.
How the GTR will look after conversion, with a higher ride height and bigger gaps between the tyres and the wheel arches, will be another matter. There is no way that lifting the P1 GTR, which must be done for road use, will not detract from the GTR's mean, purposeful look.
The P1 and P1 GTR were essentially parallel projects: one for the road, as best as McLaren could do it, and one for the track. To take McLaren's best effort for the track and attempt to transmogrify it into something better than the factory's best effort for the road seems a bit of a fool's errand. By doing that conversion, in a single stroke one would be spending a lot of money to create a less-good road car and a less-good track car.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff