Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
I'd be interested to know how the McLaren feels, in terms of straight line speed, compared to more modern machinery which has a similar 0-60 time yet noticeably lower top speed. Is it really that the McLaren F1 just keeps on pulling harder past 60 than other more modern supercars you've driven, or does it feel no faster? For example.... It may have a very similar 0-60 time as a Zonda F, yet it has a considerably higher top speed.... Once past or up around the 100mph mark does the McLaren F1 become noticeably faster than the other car?
Cheers
Cheers
flemke said:
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)?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.
One of the reasons F1s get into my (otherwise BMW) model car collection.
Have we covered why Flemke's gone for a P1 rather than a 918 Spyder? Having read a lot of the reviews, it would seem to me that the 918 is a better match for the type of driving he does (IE, not trackdays) than the P1, and as he already owns a 993 Turbo S and a Carrera GT, he could be said to be more of a Porsche fan than a McLaren one?
Have you driven both Flemke? What made you decide on the P1?
Have you driven both Flemke? What made you decide on the P1?
ManFromDelmonte said:
One thing I remember reading at the time was that the gear ratios were compromised (longer first gear) to give a faster headline 0-60 time. Something that, if true, jars with the philosophy used in the rest of the car.
There are a couple of aspects to the long 1st gear ratio.The ratio is more than sufficient off the line. The car will easily set off by letting out the clutch without touching the throttle.
My own quibble with it, however, is that, with the engine running at tickover, which I think is 950 rpm, the car is going more quickly than most cars will do. The consequence of this is that, in creeping traffic, the car won't creep with everything else. Rather, you have to alternate letting out and then dipping the clutch, to generate an average speed equal to that of the creepers.
E65Ross said:
I'd be interested to know how the McLaren feels, in terms of straight line speed, compared to more modern machinery which has a similar 0-60 time yet noticeably lower top speed. Is it really that the McLaren F1 just keeps on pulling harder past 60 than other more modern supercars you've driven, or does it feel no faster? For example.... It may have a very similar 0-60 time as a Zonda F, yet it has a considerably higher top speed.... Once past or up around the 100mph mark does the McLaren F1 become noticeably faster than the other car?
Cheers
Yes, the F1 is noticeably faster in the upper half of its speed range. Above say 140 or so, it accelerates harder than a Veyron, which is a pretty good benchmark. (One should ignore the Autocar "official" 0-200 time, which is about 25% slower than what the car will actually do.)Cheers
The reason for its superior upper range acceleration is that the F1 is a small, slippery car. It has much less frontal area than all the other "comparables", and much less drag. This is not so important at lower speeds, but as your speed increases, the need to push air out of the way grows exponentially.
The compromise inherent in the F1's slipperiness is that the car has less downforce and is consequently less stable at higher speeds than most of the others are.
HereBeMonsters said:
Have we covered why Flemke's gone for a P1 rather than a 918 Spyder? Having read a lot of the reviews, it would seem to me that the 918 is a better match for the type of driving he does (IE, not trackdays) than the P1, and as he already owns a 993 Turbo S and a Carrera GT, he could be said to be more of a Porsche fan than a McLaren one?
Have you driven both Flemke? What made you decide on the P1?
There are some ways in which I prefer the 918 to the P1. The first is that the rear of the car, including the exhaust exits out of the rear deck, is the best looking view of any angle of any of the recent "hypercars" (Huayra, Laffer, P1, 918).Have you driven both Flemke? What made you decide on the P1?
The interior of the 918 is also quite special, and again superior to the competition. It has a substance to it that is lacking in the others.
The next advantage is that one knows also that the underlying depth of engineering in the 918 is superior to that in the other cars.
There are however some drawbacks.
The principal one is: why does the bloody thing have to weigh about 200kg more than the other cars do? Because it's filled with batteries. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't need or want a car that is filled with batteries. The batteries (and why they were there) in the P1 nearly put me off getting the car, but at least McLaren didn't go OTT with the number and weight of them.
They say that this is "the future" of motorcars. Fine, but it does not have to be the present and, if Volkswagen Group feel the irrepressible need to develop hybrid technology in a car that nonetheless is primarily internal combustion-powered, let them do it in a vehicle that is not supposed to be driver- and performance-focused, but rather that is meant to pay for itself by being built in large numbers, like a Prius or something.
My next issue with the 918 is that, as good as the back of the 918 looks, the front looks like "just another Porsche", and I'm tired of that.
Another problem is that they are making too many of them. I don't need to make a profit on a car, but I'd rather not lose a lot.
One would have thought that Porsche would have learned from the Carrera GT experience. They said they were going to make "no more than 1500", which meant that they were hoping to make and sell 1500.
In the event they made 1270, and it took them ages to shift all 1270. In this regard the efforts of Porsche Cars North America were especially poor, one could say incompetent: US prices led the market down in 2004, and even 10 years later the global market for the cars still has an American damper on it.
The Carrera GT continues, justifiably, to get rave reviews - "The last great analogue supercar", etc. If someone can explain to me the rationality of a Carrera GT, with its wonderful V10 engine, tremendous brakes and handling, meaningful downforce, bespoke carbon-fibre tub, excellent build quality, unique gearshift, etc., still selling for less than its RRP of 10 years ago, whilst the price of pretty much every other car good car on the planet has gone through the roof, and even a cookie-cutter 4.0 RS now goes for more than a CGT will do, I would like to hear that.
The only explanation of which I am aware is that Porsche overreached themselves in CGT production numbers.
It certainly looks like they are repeating that error with the 918, as the contemporaneous Laffer and P1 were sold out ages ago, whilst Porsche are still struggling to sell the rest of their proposed run and, if and when they do sell them all, the result will be more than twice as many 918s floating around as there will be P1s or Laffers.
This 918 exercise has all the makings of another expensive frustration. If the 918 were a better version of the Carrera GT (higher build quality, lower weight, normally aspirated, no hybrid crap), at the same price as they're asking, but with the same build numbers, so that the investment prospects were not the greatest but the enjoyment prospects were strong, then I would be interested. As it is, however, there will be too many of something that I don't want all that much to start with.
flemke said:
Yes, the F1 is noticeably faster in the upper half of its speed range. Above say 140 or so, it accelerates harder than a Veyron, which is a pretty good benchmark. (One should ignore the Autocar "official" 0-200 time, which is about 25% slower than what the car will actually do.)
The reason for its superior upper range acceleration is that the F1 is a small, slippery car. It has much less frontal area than all the other "comparables", and much less drag. This is not so important at lower speeds, but as your speed increases, the need to push air out of the way grows exponentially.
The compromise inherent in the F1's slipperiness is that the car has less downforce and is consequently less stable at higher speeds than most of the others are.
Tony Smith said that was why he got the rear wing/front spoiler added to his F1 as the rear was quite floaty at over 180, have you ever considered getting that pack too or would it compromise the looks too much for the time spent at those sort of speeds?The reason for its superior upper range acceleration is that the F1 is a small, slippery car. It has much less frontal area than all the other "comparables", and much less drag. This is not so important at lower speeds, but as your speed increases, the need to push air out of the way grows exponentially.
The compromise inherent in the F1's slipperiness is that the car has less downforce and is consequently less stable at higher speeds than most of the others are.
greygoose said:
flemke said:
Yes, the F1 is noticeably faster in the upper half of its speed range. Above say 140 or so, it accelerates harder than a Veyron, which is a pretty good benchmark. (One should ignore the Autocar "official" 0-200 time, which is about 25% slower than what the car will actually do.)
The reason for its superior upper range acceleration is that the F1 is a small, slippery car. It has much less frontal area than all the other "comparables", and much less drag. This is not so important at lower speeds, but as your speed increases, the need to push air out of the way grows exponentially.
The compromise inherent in the F1's slipperiness is that the car has less downforce and is consequently less stable at higher speeds than most of the others are.
Tony Smith said that was why he got the rear wing/front spoiler added to his F1 as the rear was quite floaty at over 180, have you ever considered getting that pack too or would it compromise the looks too much for the time spent at those sort of speeds?The reason for its superior upper range acceleration is that the F1 is a small, slippery car. It has much less frontal area than all the other "comparables", and much less drag. This is not so important at lower speeds, but as your speed increases, the need to push air out of the way grows exponentially.
The compromise inherent in the F1's slipperiness is that the car has less downforce and is consequently less stable at higher speeds than most of the others are.
flemke said:
E65Ross said:
I'd be interested to know how the McLaren feels, in terms of straight line speed, compared to more modern machinery which has a similar 0-60 time yet noticeably lower top speed. Is it really that the McLaren F1 just keeps on pulling harder past 60 than other more modern supercars you've driven, or does it feel no faster? For example.... It may have a very similar 0-60 time as a Zonda F, yet it has a considerably higher top speed.... Once past or up around the 100mph mark does the McLaren F1 become noticeably faster than the other car?
Cheers
Yes, the F1 is noticeably faster in the upper half of its speed range. Above say 140 or so, it accelerates harder than a Veyron, which is a pretty good benchmark. (One should ignore the Autocar "official" 0-200 time, which is about 25% slower than what the car will actually do.)Cheers
The reason for its superior upper range acceleration is that the F1 is a small, slippery car. It has much less frontal area than all the other "comparables", and much less drag. This is not so important at lower speeds, but as your speed increases, the need to push air out of the way grows exponentially.
The compromise inherent in the F1's slipperiness is that the car has less downforce and is consequently less stable at higher speeds than most of the others are.
flemke said:
Carrera GT, still selling for less than its RRP of 10 years ago, whilst the price of pretty much every other car good car on the planet has gone through the roof, and even a cookie-cutter 4.0 RS now goes for more than a CGT will do, I would like to hear that.
i have tried (and failed) to understand some of the current prices of 'classic cars'. and dont even mutter the words 'barn find'. however perhaps the most confusing value is for the honda nsx, why so cheap? the price of a similar vintage 911 has rocketed, but the honda is a far superior car in every way. got to be the best vfm available today.LarJammer said:
i have tried (and failed) to understand some of the current prices of 'classic cars'. and dont even mutter the words 'barn find'. however perhaps the most confusing value is for the honda nsx, why so cheap? the price of a similar vintage 911 has rocketed, but the honda is a far superior car in every way. got to be the best vfm available today.
Completely agree. The other thing that puzzles me with the Nsx is the disparity between early and late model pricing given the lack of updates through it's life cycle. It's not like the newest of them are depreciating still, they're actually going up.LaurasOtherHalf said:
Nice article in octane this month re the artwork in the f1 owners handbook
Sure is. I sourced the book for the author of the article at his request which aided in the story, and we both met Mark Roberts [who produced the Manual] a few years back on a Tour of the MTC ( https://www.facebook.com/mclarenautomotive/photos/... and here ( https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151160... ) when we chatted about the Owners Manual, Driving Ambition and his work on the F1 in its early years pre-production and he was surprised to hear I bought one of the super rare Le Mans Edition of Driving Ambition [on the say-so of Mr F who said it was the best version to get] which he also penned - MR said he hasn't got a copy of that, which surprised me. My Owners Manual is one not assigned to any car, as there is no writing from Gordon Murray in the first few pages re seat position, VIN number, engine number etc but my god, for a manual on a car, its something really special!LarJammer said:
i have tried (and failed) to understand some of the current prices of 'classic cars'. and dont even mutter the words 'barn find'. however perhaps the most confusing value is for the honda nsx, why so cheap? the price of a similar vintage 911 has rocketed, but the honda is a far superior car in every way. got to be the best vfm available today.
Probably the same reason people failed to buy them when new. For all it's many, many qualities, it still has a Honda badge.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff