Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)

[flemke]

zhead said:

Just been reading more about the F1 (must admit, was a little confused by the differing types offered) and read this section on Wikipedia:

Wikipedia says said:

The normal McLaren F1 features no wings to produce downforce (compare the LM and GTR editions); however, the overall design of the underbody of the McLaren F1 in addition to a rear diffuser exploits ground effect to improve downforce which is increased through the use of two electric Kevlar fans to further decrease the pressure under the car.[21] A "high downforce mode" can be turned on and off by the driver.[21] At the top of the vehicle, there is an air intake to direct high pressure air to the engine with a low pressure exit point at the top of the very rear.[21] Under each door is a small air intake to provide cooling for the oil tank and some of the electronics.[21] The airflow created by the electric fans not only increase downforce, but the airflow that is created is further exploited through design, by being directed through the engine bay to provide additional cooling for the engine and the ECU.[21] At the front, there are ducts assisted by a Kevlar electric suction fan for cooling of the front brakes.

I had no idea that the F1 effectively ran a ground effect system - I'd never heard of it before. Knowing the approach to design and focus on everything playing it's part I'm sure it contributes but Flemke, is it noticeable when you turn these fans on?

And a boring question - where are the switches to turn these fans on and off?

A couple of separate things going on here.

At the front, there are electric motors inside the brake cooling ducts. They actuate when the brakes are applied at 60 mph or more (at least, that is what the factory told me when I asked last year, although they had to do some digging to ascertain what the actuating protocol was, so the number may be wrong).

At the rear there is an active flap, which is deployed automatically when the brakes are applied above IIRC 40 mph.
When the flap is up, apertures directly underneath it then are open and they allow air to escape from underneath the car. On its way from underneath to above, the flow of air is designed to go past the brakes to supply some cooling.
I am not aware that there are electric fans that accelerate this rear air flow.

In addition to the automatic deployment of the rear flap, it can be raised manually, either "fully" (which just means as far as it will go; the whole thing does not rise; the rear edge rises by rotating off the front, which does not rise) or halfway.

The flap can be manually operated by rotating the upper of the three knobs located behind the steering wheel and to the left of the instrument binnacle. This is the best image I could find:



In this image, one can just make out the top knob, which has an icon with the car silhouette on it. When they put a high-downforce kit on a car, they blank out that portion of the controls, as the HDK has a fixed wing and no flap.

[Monty Python]

Just watched the JL video where he's taken the engine out of his F1 - he mentions replacing the VANOS unit and the fuel cell (every 5 years?). Is this something you've had to do?

[flemke]

sinbad666 said:

Hi Flemke,

Not sure if you have seen it already but this is the video of inside Koenigsegg in which Christian Von Koenigsegg explains the manufacturing process and reason behind carbon wheels for the One:1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGGiuaQwcd8

Chris

Interesting, thank you.

For a reference, Koenigsegg says that his original forged aluminium front wheel weighed 10 kg, and the carbon weighs 5.9-6 kg. That is for 19" x 10, I think he said.

The original McLaren 17" front mag wheel weighed about 7.85 kg, and my new front 19" weighs about 7.75 kg.

Everything he describes, and what they appear to have achieved with the wheels, is impressive. Nonetheless, he pretty much glosses over the structural failure scenario, which is the one that matters. I would much rather get carbon-carbon brakes to work, which would return twice the weight savings and as well nullifying any risk of catastrophic wheel failure. Of course, carbon-carbon brakes don't have the visual sex appeal of a carbon fibre wheel, but fortunately I don't have to worry about marketing and selling cars.

If and when a major car company sorts out carbon wheels for a production road car, I would be interested, but not until then.

Cheers.

Edited by flemke on Wednesday 20th August 15:34

[flemke]

Monty Python said:

Just watched the JL video where he's taken the engine out of his F1 - he mentions replacing the VANOS unit and the fuel cell (every 5 years?). Is this something you've had to do?

The fuel "cell" or "bag tank" (kevlar-reinforced bladder) is recommended for replacement every 5 years (although Ferrari recommend that the equivalent bladder in an F40 be replaced only every 10 years). I have had it replaced on my car twice, I think, although it may have been 3 times. The 5-year life is, I believe, based on FIA requirements for replacement on racing cars.

Getting a new bag tank is an expensive piece of work but what makes the expense annoying is that, when it's done, usually your fuel gauge isn't very accurate.

The VANOS unit does not have a time-based service life, and I don't believe that it has a usage-based service life either. It gets replaced if it develops a problem. So far, mine has been fine.

[E65Ross]

flemke said:

The fuel "cell" or "bag tank" (kevlar-reinforced bladder) is recommended for replacement every 5 years (although Ferrari recommend that the equivalent bladder in an F40 be replaced only every 10 years). I have had it replaced on my car twice, I think, although it may have been 3 times. The 5-year life is, I believe, based on FIA requirements for replacement on racing cars.

Getting a new bag tank is an expensive piece of work but what makes the expense annoying is that, when it's done, usually your fuel gauge isn't very accurate.

The VANOS unit does not have a time-based service life, and I don't believe that it has a usage-based service life either. It gets replaced if it develops a problem. So far, mine has been fine.

VANOS unit should be no different to any other units fitted to BMW's, it seems regular oil changes can help and they are often reliable.

Flemke - has probably been asked before but what are the normal service intervals of the F1? Are they time/mileage dependant or driving style dependant like BMW's of the time (I say this as they developed the engine, of course). And, if I may ask, what sort of costs are involved in a normal service (of course, don't answer this if you don't like)

Cheers

[flemke]

E65Ross said:

flemke said:

The fuel "cell" or "bag tank" (kevlar-reinforced bladder) is recommended for replacement every 5 years (although Ferrari recommend that the equivalent bladder in an F40 be replaced only every 10 years). I have had it replaced on my car twice, I think, although it may have been 3 times. The 5-year life is, I believe, based on FIA requirements for replacement on racing cars.

Getting a new bag tank is an expensive piece of work but what makes the expense annoying is that, when it's done, usually your fuel gauge isn't very accurate.

The VANOS unit does not have a time-based service life, and I don't believe that it has a usage-based service life either. It gets replaced if it develops a problem. So far, mine has been fine.

VANOS unit should be no different to any other units fitted to BMW's, it seems regular oil changes can help and they are often reliable.

Flemke - has probably been asked before but what are the normal service intervals of the F1? Are they time/mileage dependant or driving style dependant like BMW's of the time (I say this as they developed the engine, of course). And, if I may ask, what sort of costs are involved in a normal service (of course, don't answer this if you don't like)

Cheers

I hope my answer is not too different from how I've answered this question before, but the following is from recollection.

Some parts of the service are time-based (such as fuel tank and brake fluid), and some mileage-based. This would be the same as for other cars.

There has always been a recommended service interval of 9 months, although I have never heard of anyone who followed that slavishly. I certainly do not. If I have not driven my car more than a modest distance, I might have it serviced once every 24-30 months.

A general service costs IRO £2,500-3,000, assuming that they do not find something that has unpredictably gone wrong. At the end of the service, the factory give you a sheaf of reports, everything from tyre, brake and clutch wear to corner weights to tappet clearances.

The new bag tank costs IRO £14k, although IIRC that is the cost of the parts, and the labour takes the total to IRO £20k. It takes, I gather, 2 men an entire day to install a new bag tank into a car. As I wrote above, the tank replacement is time-based.

A large mileage-based item are the tri-lobe joints in the half-shafts. The factory recommend that they be replaced every 20,000 miles (I know someone who thought he would not bother with the recommended replacement and the next time he drove his car, after it had been driven approximately 20,500 miles all together, they failed and he had to have the work done anyhow, not to mention the cost of car recovery, hassle, etc.) I cannot recall the exact cost of that service item, but it is north of 10 grand.

If you were to drive an F1 say 5,000 mi/yr, after 7 years and 35,000 miles, a new bag tank and a set of tri-lobe joints, plus a bunch of other stuff, I reckon you would have spent IRO £75k in maintenance, so maybe £10k-12k/yr all in.

[E65Ross]

flemke said:

I hope my answer is not too different from how I've answered this question before, but the following is from recollection.

Some parts of the service are time-based (such as fuel tank and brake fluid), and some mileage-based. This would be the same as for other cars.

There has always been a recommended service interval of 9 months, although I have never heard of anyone who followed that slavishly. I certainly do not. If I have not driven my car more than a modest distance, I might have it serviced once every 24-30 months.

A general service costs IRO £2,500-3,000, assuming that they do not find something that has unpredictably gone wrong. At the end of the service, the factory give you a sheaf of reports, everything from tyre, brake and clutch wear to corner weights to tappet clearances.

The new bag tank costs IRO £14k, although IIRC that is the cost of the parts, and the labour takes the total to IRO £20k. It takes, I gather, 2 men an entire day to install a new bag tank into a car. As I wrote above, the tank replacement is time-based.

A large mileage-based item are the tri-lobe joints in the half-shafts. The factory recommend that they be replaced every 20,000 miles (I know someone who thought he would not bother with the recommended replacement and the next time he drove his car, after it had been driven approximately 20,500 miles all together, they failed and he had to have the work done anyhow, not to mention the cost of car recovery, hassle, etc.) I cannot recall the exact cost of that service item, but it is north of 10 grand.

If you were to drive an F1 say 5,000 mi/yr, after 7 years and 35,000 miles, a new bag tank and a set of tri-lobe joints, plus a bunch of other stuff, I reckon you would have spent IRO £75k in maintenance, so maybe £10k-12k/yr all in.

Thank you for the detailed reply. Some of those figures are really quite scary; but when you also consider that the car isn't losing any money in depreciation etc....I guess it's not too bad, especially considering the value of the vehicle.

[ManFromDelmonte]

E65Ross said:

Thank you for the detailed reply. Some of those figures are really quite scary; but when you also consider that the car isn't losing any money in depreciation etc....I guess it's not too bad, especially considering the value of the vehicle.

The way prices have risen I would say it's likely more than earning its keep.

[g3org3y]

greygoose said:

flemke said:

g3org3y said:

flemke said:

g3org3y said:

flemke said:

Something like this could be good on the F1:

Looks like the kind of thing girls in Essex have tattooed on their lower back.

Having seen not many, if any, Essex girls' lower backs, I could not say.

If there is a resemblance, are you sure that these sophisticated, sensitive ladies have not simply been inspired by examples of great pinstriping?

Having worked in Essex for the last 5 years, I've seen more of more Essex girls (in a professional capacity of course) than I care to remember!

The F1 is a very simple, clean and elegant design, especially compared to its contemporaries. Too many additional styling elements will only make it look fussy.

The pin stripes could work but the squiggle will (imvho) look crap. You shouldn't add it for the sake of adding it.

But then again it's your car.

The thing is, if you never try new things, you never learn anything and you never get anywhere. In trying new things, you must in advance reconcile yourself to the inevitability of occasional disappointment. If you are unwilling to do that, you might as well just copy other people, or do nothing at all.

You don't have to justify your decision to explore Essex girls and their lower backs to us .

But if you decide to embark on the exploration be sure to start a thread on it.

Flemke - Is this your Essex girl? (Vol 3)

[flemke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

flemke said:

If you were to drive an F1 say 5,000 mi/yr, after 7 years and 35,000 miles, a new bag tank and a set of tri-lobe joints, plus a bunch of other stuff, I reckon you would have spent IRO £75k in maintenance, so maybe £10k-12k/yr all in.

Knowing what you know about the F1, and the P1 - do you expect similar 'approximate' maintenance costs in the P1 ?

Good question.

My guess is that, in the short term, the P1 won't need as much done to it, but what does need doing will be more expensive.

Most of what is in the F1 is by now old or at least well-established technology. There is still a proprietary F1 lap-top needed for certain diagnostics but, because the engine is very robust, in practice that lap-top is rarely indispensable. This means that there are plenty of technicians who, in theory, have the knowledge and facilities to work on most areas of an F1. This competition keeps a lid on the F1 service prices. It may be a very tall lid, but at least it is there.

Like almost all other modern cars, the P1 is laden with loads of novel or proprietary technology, and it will be years before anyone other than an official service centre is able to offer much to the owner who would like an alternative to the McLaren service monopoly.

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Is the P1 a Fuel 'Bag'er - I didn't think so, but I would guess the Battery that is firmly squirrelled away within the tub to be a horrific cost, as and when it needs looking at.

Bag tanks have never been mentioned so, as you say, I don't think there is one. They're so last century, you know!

Wrt the batteries, the factory have told me that, no matter what, I should not let the unit go flat. A v substantial trickle charger comes with the car, and most owners are buying a second charger as well.

They have told me that, should it go flat, the battery unit cannot be recharged. It must be replaces, in toto. They said that the cost of a replacement unit is in the tens of thousands.

[Soov535]

flemke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

flemke said:

If you were to drive an F1 say 5,000 mi/yr, after 7 years and 35,000 miles, a new bag tank and a set of tri-lobe joints, plus a bunch of other stuff, I reckon you would have spent IRO £75k in maintenance, so maybe £10k-12k/yr all in.

Knowing what you know about the F1, and the P1 - do you expect similar 'approximate' maintenance costs in the P1 ?

Good question.

My guess is that, in the short term, the P1 won't need as much done to it, but what does need doing will be more expensive.

Most of what is in the F1 is by now old or at least well-established technology. There is still a proprietary F1 lap-top needed for certain diagnostics but, because the engine is very robust, in practice that lap-top is rarely indispensable. This means that there are plenty of technicians who, in theory, have the knowledge and facilities to work on most areas of an F1. This competition keeps a lid on the F1 service prices. It may be a very tall lid, but at least it is there.

Like almost all other modern cars, the P1 is laden with loads of novel or proprietary technology, and it will be years before anyone other than an official service centre is able to offer much to the owner who would like an alternative to the McLaren service monopoly.

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Is the P1 a Fuel 'Bag'er - I didn't think so, but I would guess the Battery that is firmly squirrelled away within the tub to be a horrific cost, as and when it needs looking at.

Bag tanks have never been mentioned so, as you say, I don't think there is one. They're so last century, you know!

Wrt the batteries, the factory have told me that, no matter what, I should not let the unit go flat. A v substantial trickle charger comes with the car, and most owners are buying a second charger as well.

They have told me that, should it go flat, the battery unit cannot be recharged. It must be replaces, in toto. They said that the cost of a replacement unit is in the tens of thousands.

*thud*

[g3org3y]

flemke said:

Most of what is in the F1 is by now old or at least well-established technology. There is still a proprietary F1 lap-top needed for certain diagnostics but, because the engine is very robust, in practice that lap-top is rarely indispensable.

How do you rate the robustness of the BMW unit compared to firstly equivalent exotica (F40, F50 etc) and secondly those more contemporary (Carrera GT, Zonda)?

[flemke]

E65Ross said:

flemke said:

I hope my answer is not too different from how I've answered this question before, but the following is from recollection.

Some parts of the service are time-based (such as fuel tank and brake fluid), and some mileage-based. This would be the same as for other cars.

There has always been a recommended service interval of 9 months, although I have never heard of anyone who followed that slavishly. I certainly do not. If I have not driven my car more than a modest distance, I might have it serviced once every 24-30 months.

A general service costs IRO £2,500-3,000, assuming that they do not find something that has unpredictably gone wrong. At the end of the service, the factory give you a sheaf of reports, everything from tyre, brake and clutch wear to corner weights to tappet clearances.

The new bag tank costs IRO £14k, although IIRC that is the cost of the parts, and the labour takes the total to IRO £20k. It takes, I gather, 2 men an entire day to install a new bag tank into a car. As I wrote above, the tank replacement is time-based.

A large mileage-based item are the tri-lobe joints in the half-shafts. The factory recommend that they be replaced every 20,000 miles (I know someone who thought he would not bother with the recommended replacement and the next time he drove his car, after it had been driven approximately 20,500 miles all together, they failed and he had to have the work done anyhow, not to mention the cost of car recovery, hassle, etc.) I cannot recall the exact cost of that service item, but it is north of 10 grand.

If you were to drive an F1 say 5,000 mi/yr, after 7 years and 35,000 miles, a new bag tank and a set of tri-lobe joints, plus a bunch of other stuff, I reckon you would have spent IRO £75k in maintenance, so maybe £10k-12k/yr all in.

Thank you for the detailed reply. Some of those figures are really quite scary; but when you also consider that the car isn't losing any money in depreciation etc....I guess it's not too bad, especially considering the value of the vehicle.

When it comes to future car values, the only thing we can be sure of is that we cannot be sure of anything.

Having said that, the average annual servicing costs plus insurance plus storage is going to cost, very roughly and with considerable variation, £30-45k/yr.

If we say £40k, that is less than 1% of the current market value. So long as market appreciation is greater than 1% pa, you'll be ahead of the game.

Granted that the recent price rise has been a bit OTT, and there could be a correction, the fact that so few cars were made, and nothing like it will come again, leads me to believe that the prices in a few years will be well ahead of what they are today. At least that's the theory!

[flemke]

ManFromDelmonte said:

E65Ross said:

Thank you for the detailed reply. Some of those figures are really quite scary; but when you also consider that the car isn't losing any money in depreciation etc....I guess it's not too bad, especially considering the value of the vehicle.

The way prices have risen I would say it's likely more than earning its keep.

So far, so good....

[flemke]

g3org3y said:

But if you decide to embark on the exploration be sure to start a thread on it.

Flemke - Is this your Essex girl? (Vol 3)

I might be an Essex boy, you know.

[darreni]

flemke said:

Bag tanks have never been mentioned so, as you say, I don't think there is one. They're so last century, you know!

Wrt the batteries, the factory have told me that, no matter what, I should not let the unit go flat. A v substantial trickle charger comes with the car, and most owners are buying a second charger as well.

They have told me that, should it go flat, the battery unit cannot be recharged. It must be replaces, in toto. They said that the cost of a replacement unit is in the tens of thousands.

Flemke, does the battery unit have a known service life?

[g3org3y]

flemke said:

g3org3y said:

But if you decide to embark on the exploration be sure to start a thread on it.

Flemke - Is this your Essex girl? (Vol 3)

I might be an Essex boy, you know.

Then you should know better!


Now sure whether this has been asked/answered before:

I understand the F1 has a 0-62 of 3.2 seconds. This is sans fancy t/c and launch control. How much of an improvement in time would a launch control from a modern super/hypercar make (if at all)? Can a computer out accelerate a human with a 3 pedals (surely getting the power down is very difficult for racing starts)?

[anonymous-user]

Soov535 said:

flemke said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

flemke said:

If you were to drive an F1 say 5,000 mi/yr, after 7 years and 35,000 miles, a new bag tank and a set of tri-lobe joints, plus a bunch of other stuff, I reckon you would have spent IRO £75k in maintenance, so maybe £10k-12k/yr all in.

Knowing what you know about the F1, and the P1 - do you expect similar 'approximate' maintenance costs in the P1 ?

Good question.

My guess is that, in the short term, the P1 won't need as much done to it, but what does need doing will be more expensive.

Most of what is in the F1 is by now old or at least well-established technology. There is still a proprietary F1 lap-top needed for certain diagnostics but, because the engine is very robust, in practice that lap-top is rarely indispensable. This means that there are plenty of technicians who, in theory, have the knowledge and facilities to work on most areas of an F1. This competition keeps a lid on the F1 service prices. It may be a very tall lid, but at least it is there.

Like almost all other modern cars, the P1 is laden with loads of novel or proprietary technology, and it will be years before anyone other than an official service centre is able to offer much to the owner who would like an alternative to the McLaren service monopoly.

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Is the P1 a Fuel 'Bag'er - I didn't think so, but I would guess the Battery that is firmly squirrelled away within the tub to be a horrific cost, as and when it needs looking at.

Bag tanks have never been mentioned so, as you say, I don't think there is one. They're so last century, you know!

Wrt the batteries, the factory have told me that, no matter what, I should not let the unit go flat. A v substantial trickle charger comes with the car, and most owners are buying a second charger as well.

They have told me that, should it go flat, the battery unit cannot be recharged. It must be replaces, in toto. They said that the cost of a replacement unit is in the tens of thousands.

*thud*

Few points RE: P1

1) It uses a conventional blow moulded "plastic" fuel tank, like all production cars these days. These are not "life'd" as such. This technology was still in it's infancy when the F1 was designed, so it used an expensive and potentially life limited motorsport style bag tank (the life-ing on these is rather un-necessary when using conventional pump fuels tbh, the FIA rules are for extreme safety in a high risk environment using what could be called "aggressive" fuels. (I can't say i have ever seen a bag tank removed that had actually obviously degraded in situ))

2) P1 battery is actually pretty easy to install / remove, as it is stuffed up from underneath into the zone between the engine and the back of the passenger cell. It also has the power electronics (inverter) for the electric machine mounted to it

3) Letting the main HV battery "go flat" is bad. But it should really not happen, unless you were to put the car into long term storage without any kind of attempt to maintain battery condition. In effect, when the car is turned off, the main battery contactors open to "safe" the HV DC system, but the battery is still undergoing both self discharge (integral to its cells, an extremely slow discharge over time) and the tiny current draw of the battery monitoring system. This means that if left untouched for more than several months, the battery cells could reach a low enough voltage to damage them. In reality, this damage is often really a reduction in life/performance, rather than catastrophic, but in order to maintain full vehicle performance, it is sensible to recommend a full replacement of the battery pack if this were to occur. To avoid this, simply ensuring the car is "under charge" when stored will be sufficient (there have been cases where the "mains" charger has failed or lost its power supply on stored battery packs, which have then discharged to critical levels over a period of months un-noticed.
In all cases, the best option is just to make sure you use the car often, which i can also highly recommend for enjoyment reasons ;-)

(ETA: the cars conventional 12v battery is charged via a DC-DC convertor (integral to the inverter unit), and if the car is left or stored, the normal "SLEEP" current draw (alarm + other systems) will discharge this battery. When turned on, the hybrid controller will attempt to recharge this 12v battery with power from the HV traction battery, however, it will only attempt to do this if the SoC (State of Charge) of the HV battery is within bounds)

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st August 13:19

[flemke]

g3org3y said:

Then you should know better!


Now sure whether this has been asked/answered before:

I understand the F1 has a 0-62 of 3.2 seconds. This is sans fancy t/c and launch control. How much of an improvement in time would a launch control from a modern super/hypercar make (if at all)? Can a computer out accelerate a human with a 3 pedals (surely getting the power down is very difficult for racing starts)?

There will be people here on PH who can answer your question better than I can do, but here is a partial answer:

If the only modification you are assuming is launch/traction control, the improvement over the best that a human could do is going to be 0.1-0.2 seconds. (Recall that we are starting from a total of 3.2 seconds, and there is only so much we can make that number smaller!)

However,

you will find that, other things being equal, a much bigger improvement will be gained by having 4-wheel drive. If you look for example at the difference in 0-60 times of 997 Turbo S and GT2, you will find that, although the GT2 has a better power-weight ratio, the Turbo's 4-wheel drive results in a time that is 0.6 faster than the GT2's: quite a difference.

Another major factor is the tyres. The F1's official time would have been measured on its original Goodyear tyres. In general, that was not a great tyre, although I am not sure what was its wear rating (a pretty good proxy in a high-quality tyre for the softness and grippiness of the compound). IIRC, the wear rating on the F1's bespoke Michelin tyres is about 160: softish, but I have seen road tyres with ratings as low as 80.

There are things you can do to condition (soften) a new tyre in order to give it more grip. This can reduce dramatically the tyre's life, but for a tyre manufacturer trying to set the lowest possible 0-60 time, tyre life is irrelevant.

Also, if I were looking to set the quickest 0-whatever time, regardless of what were "normal" usage conditions, I would be looking for some very new asphalt with nice sharp edges on the stones, and a layer of recently-laid rubber on top. I'd pick a cool day in early autumn, when the air going into the engine was dense but the ground still retained most of the summer's heat. I'd probably take some air out of tyres in order to increase size of contact patch.

There are prob 20 other things that could be done to improve a "standard" road car's 0-60 time, although they perhaps would not improve the car. The above are intended to give a bit of context to the F1's 0-60 time in relation to the same measurement for other cars.

[flemke]

g3org3y said:

flemke said:

Most of what is in the F1 is by now old or at least well-established technology. There is still a proprietary F1 lap-top needed for certain diagnostics but, because the engine is very robust, in practice that lap-top is rarely indispensable.

How do you rate the robustness of the BMW unit compared to firstly equivalent exotica (F40, F50 etc) and secondly those more contemporary (Carrera GT, Zonda)?

I could not really say.

Paul Rosche (chief designer of F1's engine) has said that the engine should be able to go "at least 250,000 kms" before a rebuild would be needed. Before rebuild-time, the engine is pretty robust, although things can go wrong, including VANOS and lambda sensors.

I have never lived with an F40 or F50, so my opinion on them is pretty meaningless. My meaningless hunch is that both engines would need major work far before the F1's engine would do, but as I say that notion is meaningless.

Porsche engines in my experience are at medium on the robustness scale. For example, at less than 10,000 miles the factory strongly advise that the cam followers be adjusted, which is an engine-out operation. To me, that is not a very impressive requirement.

The Zonda's V12 is something of a glorious sledgehammer, and I would expect it to be at least as robust as the F1's engine, although it is not quite as exciting or awe-inspiring as the F1's.