Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
As the picture was loading I was seeing the stitching and finishing of the backrest of the seat and that isn't particularly great either. I'm not great at welding but would not be happy if that was my standard on an exposed piece particularly, but not even sure it looks great from a structural perspective either.
flemke said:
Thanks, Dave.
I used to own a vintage prototype racing car of the same genre but a bit later ('72). After restoration it was a lovely thing, but I just didn't have sufficient interest to get into the historic racing scene.
I do think that, in most cases, one would have to be insane to buy a car at auction.
The process is devised by the agent for the sole purpose of extracting the absolute highest possible marginal price for the benefit of the seller, a price that is often inflated by exploiting the human frailties of the buyer. For the privilege of getting sucked into that the buyer is required to pay most and sometimes all of the agent's fees of 10% on top of hammer price. That is ludicrous. WTF shouldn't the seller pay all the fees?
If any of the pricks who are in the car auctioning business tried to persuade me to buy a car at auction, I would tell them to f
k off. What a joke.
I'm not sure that's the right way to think about it.I used to own a vintage prototype racing car of the same genre but a bit later ('72). After restoration it was a lovely thing, but I just didn't have sufficient interest to get into the historic racing scene.
I do think that, in most cases, one would have to be insane to buy a car at auction.
The process is devised by the agent for the sole purpose of extracting the absolute highest possible marginal price for the benefit of the seller, a price that is often inflated by exploiting the human frailties of the buyer. For the privilege of getting sucked into that the buyer is required to pay most and sometimes all of the agent's fees of 10% on top of hammer price. That is ludicrous. WTF shouldn't the seller pay all the fees?
If any of the pricks who are in the car auctioning business tried to persuade me to buy a car at auction, I would tell them to f
k off. What a joke.Edited by flemke on Tuesday 24th November 10:15
A buyer at auction is aware of the buyer's premium and therefore should bid lower than he otherwise would by that amount - thereby paying the market rate when the auction is over.
The seller then is the one that suffers in that they receive the market rate minus the auction houses premium.
Unless it is assumed that at auction buyer's consistently pay more for cars than otherwise (I would have thought that was unlikely as there are many more risks involved in buying at car auctions than buying from a dealer, so the price must incorporate that risk discount)?
Mousem40 said:
flemke said:
Thanks, Dave.
I used to own a vintage prototype racing car of the same genre but a bit later ('72). After restoration it was a lovely thing, but I just didn't have sufficient interest to get into the historic racing scene.
I do think that, in most cases, one would have to be insane to buy a car at auction.
The process is devised by the agent for the sole purpose of extracting the absolute highest possible marginal price for the benefit of the seller, a price that is often inflated by exploiting the human frailties of the buyer. For the privilege of getting sucked into that the buyer is required to pay most and sometimes all of the agent's fees of 10% on top of hammer price. That is ludicrous. WTF shouldn't the seller pay all the fees?
If any of the pricks who are in the car auctioning business tried to persuade me to buy a car at auction, I would tell them to fk off. What a joke.
I'm not sure that's the right way to think about it.I used to own a vintage prototype racing car of the same genre but a bit later ('72). After restoration it was a lovely thing, but I just didn't have sufficient interest to get into the historic racing scene.
I do think that, in most cases, one would have to be insane to buy a car at auction.
The process is devised by the agent for the sole purpose of extracting the absolute highest possible marginal price for the benefit of the seller, a price that is often inflated by exploiting the human frailties of the buyer. For the privilege of getting sucked into that the buyer is required to pay most and sometimes all of the agent's fees of 10% on top of hammer price. That is ludicrous. WTF shouldn't the seller pay all the fees?
If any of the pricks who are in the car auctioning business tried to persuade me to buy a car at auction, I would tell them to f
k off. What a joke.Edited by flemke on Tuesday 24th November 10:15
A buyer at auction is aware of the buyer's premium and therefore should bid lower than he otherwise would by that amount - thereby paying the market rate when the auction is over.
The seller then is the one that suffers in that they receive the market rate minus the auction houses premium.
Unless it is assumed that at auction buyer's consistently pay more for cars than otherwise (I would have thought that was unlikely as there are many more risks involved in buying at car auctions than buying from a dealer, so the price must incorporate that risk discount)?
In the pre-internet days, and even more in the pre-print days, an auction made sense: for the buyers, getting a lot of stock in one place and one time; for the sellers, getting a lot of buyers in one place at one time.
Nowadays, however, that network effect and economy of scale are not needed. Obviously auction houses have a huge incentive to make their sales mechanism seem important, although it is not obvious why it would be important. A dealer acting as agent for a SOR car (at least an expensive one) will typically charge 5%, whereas auction houses seem to get an average of about 10% from the buyer and an additional several % from the seller.
In theory, the buyer and the seller share the commission cost, regardless of who is nominally being charged what %. In reality, however, it's all stacked against the buyer.
The intended effect of an auction is to create intense pressure on buyers, exploiting innate competitiveness and fear, in order to achieve the highest possible price for the seller. Yes, any seller normally seeks the highest possible price, but in other forms of sale the process is more balanced between the advantages of the seller and those of the buyer.
I appreciate that the buyer should be taking into account the full cost of a successful bid before making it. Nonetheless, in light of the way that the process is designed to be skewed in favour of the seller, the decent thing to do would be at least to pretend that it's the seller who is paying the auction house which is trying to generate the highest possible price for his benefit, and contrary to the buyer's benefit.
flemke said:
droopsnoot said:
flemke said:
Rather I had in mind things such as welds that look like lines of cake frosting that have been applied by a child with a toothpick - terrible workmanship.
Interesting - I recall looking around a 77-ish Lamborghini Urraco that had been towed into a mates workshop and trying to decide whether the appalling welding was down to a poor restoration or just seventies Lamborghini build quality.This is from a modern Ferrari:
Compare and contrast...... (the exhuast from GTRCLIVE's 962 build.....)
Edited by Soov535 on Monday 7th December 09:49
Flemke, apologies if this has been covered before: have you had any of the original development team drive your modified F1 and, if so, have they passed comment on whether they deem it to be an improvement or not? Have Messrs. Murray or Wallace had their mitts on the wheel, for example?
flemke said:
You are right to raise the question of buyer uncertainty and the cost associated with that. I think that applies mostly to the less expensive end of the spectrum. At the more expensive end, potential buyers usually do as much homework as they would be allowed to do in one-to-one negotiation.
In the pre-internet days, and even more in the pre-print days, an auction made sense: for the buyers, getting a lot of stock in one place and one time; for the sellers, getting a lot of buyers in one place at one time.
Nowadays, however, that network effect and economy of scale are not needed. Obviously auction houses have a huge incentive to make their sales mechanism seem important, although it is not obvious why it would be important. A dealer acting as agent for a SOR car (at least an expensive one) will typically charge 5%, whereas auction houses seem to get an average of about 10% from the buyer and an additional several % from the seller.
In theory, the buyer and the seller share the commission cost, regardless of who is nominally being charged what %. In reality, however, it's all stacked against the buyer.
The intended effect of an auction is to create intense pressure on buyers, exploiting innate competitiveness and fear, in order to achieve the highest possible price for the seller. Yes, any seller normally seeks the highest possible price, but in other forms of sale the process is more balanced between the advantages of the seller and those of the buyer.
I appreciate that the buyer should be taking into account the full cost of a successful bid before making it. Nonetheless, in light of the way that the process is designed to be skewed in favour of the seller, the decent thing to do would be at least to pretend that it's the seller who is paying the auction house which is trying to generate the highest possible price for his benefit, and contrary to the buyer's benefit.
I completely agree with your comments above.In the pre-internet days, and even more in the pre-print days, an auction made sense: for the buyers, getting a lot of stock in one place and one time; for the sellers, getting a lot of buyers in one place at one time.
Nowadays, however, that network effect and economy of scale are not needed. Obviously auction houses have a huge incentive to make their sales mechanism seem important, although it is not obvious why it would be important. A dealer acting as agent for a SOR car (at least an expensive one) will typically charge 5%, whereas auction houses seem to get an average of about 10% from the buyer and an additional several % from the seller.
In theory, the buyer and the seller share the commission cost, regardless of who is nominally being charged what %. In reality, however, it's all stacked against the buyer.
The intended effect of an auction is to create intense pressure on buyers, exploiting innate competitiveness and fear, in order to achieve the highest possible price for the seller. Yes, any seller normally seeks the highest possible price, but in other forms of sale the process is more balanced between the advantages of the seller and those of the buyer.
I appreciate that the buyer should be taking into account the full cost of a successful bid before making it. Nonetheless, in light of the way that the process is designed to be skewed in favour of the seller, the decent thing to do would be at least to pretend that it's the seller who is paying the auction house which is trying to generate the highest possible price for his benefit, and contrary to the buyer's benefit.
Personally I believe the auction house costs should come from the seller. The hammer price ought to be what the buyer pays. Unfortunately the auction world have gone down the 'buyer pays the fees' route a while back to encourage sellers to commit their cars.
The auction process is a pressure environment for the buyer, and the showroom sales man is the one under pressure in a dealer/private sale.
You can't walk away from an auction to 'think about it'.
Paul
Storer said:
I completely agree with your comments above.
Personally I believe the auction house costs should come from the seller. The hammer price ought to be what the buyer pays. Unfortunately the auction world have gone down the 'buyer pays the fees' route a while back to encourage sellers to commit their cars.
The auction process is a pressure environment for the buyer, and the showroom sales man is the one under pressure in a dealer/private sale.
You can't walk away from an auction to 'think about it'.
Paul
Exactly.Personally I believe the auction house costs should come from the seller. The hammer price ought to be what the buyer pays. Unfortunately the auction world have gone down the 'buyer pays the fees' route a while back to encourage sellers to commit their cars.
The auction process is a pressure environment for the buyer, and the showroom sales man is the one under pressure in a dealer/private sale.
You can't walk away from an auction to 'think about it'.
Paul
Now that there are other ways to sell a car (or other things) that in reality are better for the buyer, the auction houses need a hook to bring in potential buyers. Their primary hook is a huge range of items for sale in one place at one time (publishing biased product descriptions and creating a show-biz atmosphere are other hooks).
The only way that the auction houses can amass a huge range of items to sell is by, in effect, bribing sellers into participating in the auction. They do that by asking the sellers to pay lower commissions (and then getting bigger commissions from the buyers), by actually in some cases paying the seller a commission (which of course the auction house expects to recoup from part of the buyer's commission), and by guaranteeing sellers no less than a certain price.
All these tactics create a conflict of interest for the auction house.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that an auction is a two-against-one contest with the interests of the auction house directly aligned with the interests of the seller, both of whom conspire to gain at the buyer's expense.
McAndy said:
Flemke, apologies if this has been covered before: have you had any of the original development team drive your modified F1 and, if so, have they passed comment on whether they deem it to be an improvement or not? Have Messrs. Murray or Wallace had their mitts on the wheel, for example?
I am trying to think....I have never met Andy Wallace, so not he (although it was his idea to put the "LM" springs and dampers on my car, just as McLaren did to XP5 before its world record Vmax run in '98).
I have driven Gordon in the car. He has declined to drive it because, he said, he did not want the responsibility.
Steve Randle, the chap who, under Gordon, designed the original suspension, has driven it.
Peter Taylor, the fellow who has driven more F1s more miles than anyone else and who, rather than Jonathan Palmer, was the primary development driver, has driven it.
A number of people who know how to drive and who have had meaningful experience either driving other F1s or driving my car before the modifications were done have driven it.
The people for whose judgment (in this question) I have the most respect think the handling is better, in some cases much better. If you were someone who likes a very tail-happy car, you might prefer the original, although I would say that a tail-happy car has no place on public roads in unpredictable conditions. The tyres themselves make a very big difference in this.
The other major change, to the brakes, is without question an improvement, both in braking feel and in braking power. Everybody mentions that, if only because the original brakes were not good.
flemke said:
I am trying to think....
I have never met Andy Wallace, so not he (although it was his idea to put the "LM" springs and dampers on my car, just as McLaren did to XP5 before its world record Vmax run in '98).
I have driven Gordon in the car. He has declined to drive it because, he said, he did not want the responsibility.
Steve Randle, the chap who, under Gordon, designed the original suspension, has driven it.
Peter Taylor, the fellow who has driven more F1s more miles than anyone else and who, rather than Jonathan Palmer, was the primary development driver, has driven it.
A number of people who know how to drive and who have had meaningful experience either driving other F1s or driving my car before the modifications were done have driven it.
The people for whose judgment (in this question) I have the most respect think the handling is better, in some cases much better. If you were someone who likes a very tail-happy car, you might prefer the original, although I would say that a tail-happy car has no place on public roads in unpredictable conditions. The tyres themselves make a very big difference in this.
The other major change, to the brakes, is without question an improvement, both in braking feel and in braking power. Everybody mentions that, if only because the original brakes were not good.
Good stuff, thank you. Have you considered allowing the company to sell your proprietary modifications for a personal cut of the fee?I have never met Andy Wallace, so not he (although it was his idea to put the "LM" springs and dampers on my car, just as McLaren did to XP5 before its world record Vmax run in '98).
I have driven Gordon in the car. He has declined to drive it because, he said, he did not want the responsibility.
Steve Randle, the chap who, under Gordon, designed the original suspension, has driven it.
Peter Taylor, the fellow who has driven more F1s more miles than anyone else and who, rather than Jonathan Palmer, was the primary development driver, has driven it.
A number of people who know how to drive and who have had meaningful experience either driving other F1s or driving my car before the modifications were done have driven it.
The people for whose judgment (in this question) I have the most respect think the handling is better, in some cases much better. If you were someone who likes a very tail-happy car, you might prefer the original, although I would say that a tail-happy car has no place on public roads in unpredictable conditions. The tyres themselves make a very big difference in this.
The other major change, to the brakes, is without question an improvement, both in braking feel and in braking power. Everybody mentions that, if only because the original brakes were not good.
McAndy said:
flemke said:
I am trying to think....
I have never met Andy Wallace, so not he (although it was his idea to put the "LM" springs and dampers on my car, just as McLaren did to XP5 before its world record Vmax run in '98).
I have driven Gordon in the car. He has declined to drive it because, he said, he did not want the responsibility.
Steve Randle, the chap who, under Gordon, designed the original suspension, has driven it.
Peter Taylor, the fellow who has driven more F1s more miles than anyone else and who, rather than Jonathan Palmer, was the primary development driver, has driven it.
A number of people who know how to drive and who have had meaningful experience either driving other F1s or driving my car before the modifications were done have driven it.
The people for whose judgment (in this question) I have the most respect think the handling is better, in some cases much better. If you were someone who likes a very tail-happy car, you might prefer the original, although I would say that a tail-happy car has no place on public roads in unpredictable conditions. The tyres themselves make a very big difference in this.
The other major change, to the brakes, is without question an improvement, both in braking feel and in braking power. Everybody mentions that, if only because the original brakes were not good.
Good stuff, thank you. Have you considered allowing the company to sell your proprietary modifications for a personal cut of the fee?I have never met Andy Wallace, so not he (although it was his idea to put the "LM" springs and dampers on my car, just as McLaren did to XP5 before its world record Vmax run in '98).
I have driven Gordon in the car. He has declined to drive it because, he said, he did not want the responsibility.
Steve Randle, the chap who, under Gordon, designed the original suspension, has driven it.
Peter Taylor, the fellow who has driven more F1s more miles than anyone else and who, rather than Jonathan Palmer, was the primary development driver, has driven it.
A number of people who know how to drive and who have had meaningful experience either driving other F1s or driving my car before the modifications were done have driven it.
The people for whose judgment (in this question) I have the most respect think the handling is better, in some cases much better. If you were someone who likes a very tail-happy car, you might prefer the original, although I would say that a tail-happy car has no place on public roads in unpredictable conditions. The tyres themselves make a very big difference in this.
The other major change, to the brakes, is without question an improvement, both in braking feel and in braking power. Everybody mentions that, if only because the original brakes were not good.
Even if I were inclined to share, however, there is no way that McLaren would want to do it.
I guarantee that they would insist on embarking on their own independent design, development and testing programme, which would be quite expensive.
They would have to bear a legal liability for their work, which would not be subject to Type-approval and therefore not shielded by it.
Finally, the market for such a programme would be small. I think there are 63 road cars still in existence. Many pretty much never get driven except for a few miles when they are serviced. Of the others, many owners like to keep their cars completely original, except for cosmetic changes.
The market for such a programme would be in single figures. In 2000 when they offered the LM engine upgrade (with mandatory high-downforce kit) to all owners, it was taken up by only two people.
The fact that, in the F1's 20 years of life, I have been the only owner who has been interested enough or stupid enough to sort out the car's handling and brakes says something about the demand for such improvements. I'd bet at least half the owners don't even think that any improvement is needed.
In short, I don't think it is going to happen!
robinessex said:
flemke said:
Many pretty much never get driven except for a few miles when they are serviced.
Now I am pissed off. It's a pity, even if I won the lottery, I'd not be able to afford one and drive it regularly. Well, when it wasn't raining that is !!!Since then quite a few cars have changed hands, and I believe that the current number of regularly-driven F1s is mid-teens or so.
Flemke, I wonder if you could settle something for me...
I seem to remember from previous volumes that the clutch on your F1 has lasted for an inordinate number of miles (or at least did, I think this is from about 2007!). Did the factory ever discover why this is?
The reason I ask, is that I came across an issue of Evo from earlier on in the year when they ran a comparison between the F1 and P1. In the main article, Richard Meaden mentions something about best practice for moving an F1 from a standstill - Is it a case of trying to get the revs in as quickly as possible, or do you have to sort of ride the clutch to get it moving first? I don't have the issue to hand the moment, and only had a cursory glance, but I'm sure he said something about letting it get moving at tickover before putting more revs in.
I'm guessing that a Carbon clutch feels wildly different to a 'normal' one, and I'm also guessing that they are prohibitively expensive too. Are they readily available, or are they manufactured individually?
I seem to remember from previous volumes that the clutch on your F1 has lasted for an inordinate number of miles (or at least did, I think this is from about 2007!). Did the factory ever discover why this is?
The reason I ask, is that I came across an issue of Evo from earlier on in the year when they ran a comparison between the F1 and P1. In the main article, Richard Meaden mentions something about best practice for moving an F1 from a standstill - Is it a case of trying to get the revs in as quickly as possible, or do you have to sort of ride the clutch to get it moving first? I don't have the issue to hand the moment, and only had a cursory glance, but I'm sure he said something about letting it get moving at tickover before putting more revs in.
I'm guessing that a Carbon clutch feels wildly different to a 'normal' one, and I'm also guessing that they are prohibitively expensive too. Are they readily available, or are they manufactured individually?
Chebble said:
Flemke, I wonder if you could settle something for me...
I seem to remember from previous volumes that the clutch on your F1 has lasted for an inordinate number of miles (or at least did, I think this is from about 2007!). Did the factory ever discover why this is?
The reason I ask, is that I came across an issue of Evo from earlier on in the year when they ran a comparison between the F1 and P1. In the main article, Richard Meaden mentions something about best practice for moving an F1 from a standstill - Is it a case of trying to get the revs in as quickly as possible, or do you have to sort of ride the clutch to get it moving first? I don't have the issue to hand the moment, and only had a cursory glance, but I'm sure he said something about letting it get moving at tickover before putting more revs in.
I'm guessing that a Carbon clutch feels wildly different to a 'normal' one, and I'm also guessing that they are prohibitively expensive too. Are they readily available, or are they manufactured individually?
I seem to remember from previous volumes that the clutch on your F1 has lasted for an inordinate number of miles (or at least did, I think this is from about 2007!). Did the factory ever discover why this is?
The reason I ask, is that I came across an issue of Evo from earlier on in the year when they ran a comparison between the F1 and P1. In the main article, Richard Meaden mentions something about best practice for moving an F1 from a standstill - Is it a case of trying to get the revs in as quickly as possible, or do you have to sort of ride the clutch to get it moving first? I don't have the issue to hand the moment, and only had a cursory glance, but I'm sure he said something about letting it get moving at tickover before putting more revs in.
I'm guessing that a Carbon clutch feels wildly different to a 'normal' one, and I'm also guessing that they are prohibitively expensive too. Are they readily available, or are they manufactured individually?
Chebble said:
Flemke, I wonder if you could settle something for me...
I seem to remember from previous volumes that the clutch on your F1 has lasted for an inordinate number of miles (or at least did, I think this is from about 2007!). Did the factory ever discover why this is?
The reason I ask, is that I came across an issue of Evo from earlier on in the year when they ran a comparison between the F1 and P1. In the main article, Richard Meaden mentions something about best practice for moving an F1 from a standstill - Is it a case of trying to get the revs in as quickly as possible, or do you have to sort of ride the clutch to get it moving first? I don't have the issue to hand the moment, and only had a cursory glance, but I'm sure he said something about letting it get moving at tickover before putting more revs in.
Any car with this level of power is likely to see the clutch fry if you slip it and stamp on the throttle. This is certainly the case with my Ultima.
You have to let the clutch fully engage before 'giving it loud'. Then the point of least resistance are the tyres. This is even the case once you are on the move!
Paul
I'm guessing that a Carbon clutch feels wildly different to a 'normal' one, and I'm also guessing that they are prohibitively expensive too. Are they readily available, or are they manufactured individually?
I seem to remember from previous volumes that the clutch on your F1 has lasted for an inordinate number of miles (or at least did, I think this is from about 2007!). Did the factory ever discover why this is?
The reason I ask, is that I came across an issue of Evo from earlier on in the year when they ran a comparison between the F1 and P1. In the main article, Richard Meaden mentions something about best practice for moving an F1 from a standstill - Is it a case of trying to get the revs in as quickly as possible, or do you have to sort of ride the clutch to get it moving first? I don't have the issue to hand the moment, and only had a cursory glance, but I'm sure he said something about letting it get moving at tickover before putting more revs in.
Any car with this level of power is likely to see the clutch fry if you slip it and stamp on the throttle. This is certainly the case with my Ultima.
You have to let the clutch fully engage before 'giving it loud'. Then the point of least resistance are the tyres. This is even the case once you are on the move!
Paul
I'm guessing that a Carbon clutch feels wildly different to a 'normal' one, and I'm also guessing that they are prohibitively expensive too. Are they readily available, or are they manufactured individually?
Chebble said:
Flemke, I wonder if you could settle something for me...
I seem to remember from previous volumes that the clutch on your F1 has lasted for an inordinate number of miles (or at least did, I think this is from about 2007!). Did the factory ever discover why this is?
The reason I ask, is that I came across an issue of Evo from earlier on in the year when they ran a comparison between the F1 and P1. In the main article, Richard Meaden mentions something about best practice for moving an F1 from a standstill - Is it a case of trying to get the revs in as quickly as possible, or do you have to sort of ride the clutch to get it moving first? I don't have the issue to hand the moment, and only had a cursory glance, but I'm sure he said something about letting it get moving at tickover before putting more revs in.
I'm guessing that a Carbon clutch feels wildly different to a 'normal' one, and I'm also guessing that they are prohibitively expensive too. Are they readily available, or are they manufactured individually?
I think Richard was repeating the advice that I had given him years previously when he drove my car. I seem to remember from previous volumes that the clutch on your F1 has lasted for an inordinate number of miles (or at least did, I think this is from about 2007!). Did the factory ever discover why this is?
The reason I ask, is that I came across an issue of Evo from earlier on in the year when they ran a comparison between the F1 and P1. In the main article, Richard Meaden mentions something about best practice for moving an F1 from a standstill - Is it a case of trying to get the revs in as quickly as possible, or do you have to sort of ride the clutch to get it moving first? I don't have the issue to hand the moment, and only had a cursory glance, but I'm sure he said something about letting it get moving at tickover before putting more revs in.
I'm guessing that a Carbon clutch feels wildly different to a 'normal' one, and I'm also guessing that they are prohibitively expensive too. Are they readily available, or are they manufactured individually?
The thing with carbon-against-carbon as a friction material is that, although when cold the CoF is very low, as it gets warmer the CoF ramps up quickly, and continues to ramp up well past the temperature range at which conventional friction materials start to fade.
Therefore you need to be sensitive to the fact that at initial contact there will be little friction, but when it starts to bite, it will bite.
If however you are actually slipping the clutch, the effect will be that you are letting the faces rotate against each other sufficiently to let them build temperature, but (whether you are conscious of it or not) you are gradually releasing the pressure just enough that they cannot get a purchase on each other. The heat continues to build and build, which is bad. If you can get the carbon plates to bite into each other, the slippage will cease, and the plates will be engaged which will allow the temperature to stabilise and decline.
The trick is to let the plates grab each other just enough to get the car moving without stalling and without abusing the drivetrain, but also without slipping them and causing them to overheat.
Because the car's torque-to-weight ratio is really good, normally this is not a problem. A hill start can be tricky: you need to get the bite-point right.
As a rule, then, when leaving from a dead start on the flat, you don't need the throttle; you just let the tick-over torque (I think 950 rpm) get you moving. Once you are moving, even a little, clutch use is then as normal (a body in motion tends to stay in motion...). On a hill start, you will need a bit of revs, but you want to be delicate about it - just enough revs to avoid stalling the engine, letting out the clutch somewhat more quickly than with a conventional clutch, but not fast.
Ironically, the best hill start I think I have ever done was during an evo photo-shoot in Yorkshire. They had had me park the car on a grassy incline next to the road. When done, in setting off I eased out the clutch as I would normally do and the process was absolutely seamless, as smooth as an auto-'box.
I then realised that the seamlessness of the start was happening because the rear tyres were ever-so-slightly spinning on the grass underneath them.
Yes, the factory (and the company responsible for the gearbox and clutch, Ricardo) wanted to find out why I was getting such good clutch wear. When the clutch had IIRC about 30,000 mi on it (it now has about 34,000 mi and the wear indicator suggests that it is half worn), they proposed that they give me a new clutch FOC in return for my old one which they wanted to analyse. I politely said, "NFW! If you don't know why my clutch has lasted so long, why should I give it up for a clutch that, if normal, will theoretically last only 10 or 15% as long?"
I do go to considerable lengths to avoid clutch abuse, or unnecessary use, and that has definitely helped.
Roughly 10 years after the F1 was designed, Porsche approached the issue from a very different angle on the Carrera GT. That car does not have a carbon-carbon clutch, but rather a carbon-ceramic clutch.
On the CGT, the car's engine management system is designed to modulate the slippage. On a hill start in the CGT, the driver is meant to let out the clutch gradually without so much as touching the throttle. It works fairly well, but with a very different feeling to what you get with carbon-carbon.
Regarding the manufacture of the F1's clutch, what we are really talking about are the contact faces being made of carbon, not the basket, springs, backing plates and other metal stuff. "Carbon" is a bit like timber - you can obtain it in modular slabs and machine it to the size and shape required.
When the carbon faces wear to the point where they are too thin to make proper contact with each other (same as with brake pads and disc), the factory will mount onto the metal backing plates a new set of thick carbon faces which have been machined to shape from a slab of "raw material". You would not normally need a whole new clutch mechanism. The last I knew, to replace a set of carbon clutch faces cost IRO £3k - not cheap, but a lot less expensive than some other jobs.
flemke said:
As a rule, then, when leaving from a dead start on the flat, you don't need the throttle; you just let the tick-over torque (I think 950 rpm) get you moving. Once you are moving, even a little, clutch use is then as normal (a body in motion tends to stay in motion...). On a hill start, you will need a bit of revs, but you want to be delicate about it - just enough revs to avoid stalling the engine, letting out the clutch somewhat more quickly than with a conventional clutch, but not fast.
Should it not, Sir, also be said that because of the lack of flywheel effect, it is particularly difficult to give a very steady small amount of throttle input from idle - and so balancing a very modest amount of revs for a hill start is pretty tricky - especially when you are holding the brake AND the throttle with your right foot and trying to release the brake without changing the revs ... whereas, on the flat, provided you are not tempted to touch the throttle and rely on the idle speed - it's actually a doddle (as you said).I have a theory in relation to clutch use. I reckon that, if a car is driven correctly, there is no reason that a clutch cannot last the life of a car.
By "driven correctly", I mean sympathetically, with the minimum amount of clutch slip, properly rev-matched gearchanges, handbrake-and-neutral when stationary and a clear understanding of the idiosyncrasies of different cars.
I've been driving for almost 30 years now and I reckon I've driven well in excess of a million miles in that time, and I have never even come close to needing a new clutch in any of my cars. I did put a clutch in the MX5 a couple of years ago, but that was to cure a judder, and on removing the old clutch (which I was assured was the original, 25 year-old unit), there was minimal wear of the friction material, so the car didn't need a new clutch apart from the judder.
From what I've read about the F1, driving it correctly (in a manner sympathetic to the clutch) is made particularly difficult because of the clutch materials, the power (and specifically the way in which the power is delivered) and torque of the engine, the sharp throttle response and the light weight of the car.
A car with a slow throttle response and heavy flywheel which loses revs slowly on a closed throttle is much easier to drive in a (clutch) sensitive manner than a car with a fast throttle response and a light flywheel which loses revs quickly on a closed throttle.
It sounds like your regular use of the car, together with the ability to quickly adjust your driving style to suit the F1 has allowed you to prolong the life of the clutch far beyond the abilities of those owners who only occasionally use their cars and fail to adjust their driving styles.
Now, if only I could convince Mrs Local to be eaisier on her clutch...
By "driven correctly", I mean sympathetically, with the minimum amount of clutch slip, properly rev-matched gearchanges, handbrake-and-neutral when stationary and a clear understanding of the idiosyncrasies of different cars.
I've been driving for almost 30 years now and I reckon I've driven well in excess of a million miles in that time, and I have never even come close to needing a new clutch in any of my cars. I did put a clutch in the MX5 a couple of years ago, but that was to cure a judder, and on removing the old clutch (which I was assured was the original, 25 year-old unit), there was minimal wear of the friction material, so the car didn't need a new clutch apart from the judder.
From what I've read about the F1, driving it correctly (in a manner sympathetic to the clutch) is made particularly difficult because of the clutch materials, the power (and specifically the way in which the power is delivered) and torque of the engine, the sharp throttle response and the light weight of the car.
A car with a slow throttle response and heavy flywheel which loses revs slowly on a closed throttle is much easier to drive in a (clutch) sensitive manner than a car with a fast throttle response and a light flywheel which loses revs quickly on a closed throttle.
It sounds like your regular use of the car, together with the ability to quickly adjust your driving style to suit the F1 has allowed you to prolong the life of the clutch far beyond the abilities of those owners who only occasionally use their cars and fail to adjust their driving styles.
Now, if only I could convince Mrs Local to be eaisier on her clutch...
Storer said:
Any car with this level of power is likely to see the clutch fry if you slip it and stamp on the throttle. This is certainly the case with my Ultima.
You have to let the clutch fully engage before 'giving it loud'. Then the point of least resistance are the tyres. This is even the case once you are on the move!
Paul
I've got a bit of experience with some reasonable power, although not anything beyond 600bhp (or a Carbon clutch for that matter).You have to let the clutch fully engage before 'giving it loud'. Then the point of least resistance are the tyres. This is even the case once you are on the move!
Paul
What engine is in your Ultima? Brilliant machines, I've always rather admired them.
Another detailed answer Flemke, I won't quote it to save people from scrolling down! Thank you.
I understand your trepidation with regards to changing the clutch for one that may last a fraction of the time, but following your detailed explanation I daresay that it's been exceptional clutch control rather than an exceptional clutch - the fact that you understand how it works means that you know how to treat it with the correct mechanical sympathy. A half worn clutch at that mileage is quite impressive considering it's controlling 600+ bhp.
I understand now. I had heard that F1's can be difficult to move, although perhaps that reputation is down to the fact that people don't adapt to it quickly. I'd imagine that it needs a complete mental recalibration to drive it.
I'm surprised about the relatively low (!) cost of replacement too.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff