Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
Joe911 said:
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).Reg Local 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...
Makes sense.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...
We have not (in this latest discussion) even got into the gearshift mechanism. Although it has often been praised by journalists, in my opinion the F1's gearshift requires an excess of precision and concentration.
The best shifting 'boxes I have used, such as in the NSX, require precision and reward it, but they have at least a small margin of error. The F1's has almost none. I suspect that another factor in short clutch life has been when people have ended up badly mis-timing the clutch engagement because of a hesitation in the shift, such as 2>3 or 3>2.
Chebble said:
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.
flemke said:
Chebble said:
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.
anniesdad said:
Flemke, I saw this post on the official McLaren page tonight and thought of you. It is a real shame how somebody so passionate towards the brand thinks about them now...McLaren really should hang their heads in shame for going back on their word...
anniesdad said:
Flemke, I saw this post on the official McLaren page tonight and thought of you. It is a real shame how somebody so passionate towards the brand thinks about them now...McLaren really should hang their heads in shame for going back on their word...
McLaren seem not to have realised, or maybe it's just that they just don't care, that the reason we dislike Ferrari and were so receptive to McLaren Automotive was precisely because we want to deal with a company that has integrity.
Oh, well, another illusion shattered....
andyps said:
Does the penultimate paragraph from that link relate directly to rebuilding the prototypes as sales preparation to enable McLaren to exceed the 375 limit they talk about in the first line? Very poor ethics from them if so.
Although it's a bit ambiguous, that's the way I would read it, Andy.Regardless of what they were trying to say in that particular paragraph, be in no doubt: they absolutely, positively have made and sold to customers a bunch of "new" P1s using their prototype chassis fleet, and these cars were additional to the official production run of 375.
flemke said:
Joe911 said:
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).Crockefeller said:
flemke said:
Joe911 said:
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 hate slipping a clutch, but it's almost impossible to avoid completely when setting off from a hill-start in the Rocket.
flemke said:
Rocket hill-start is a different matter. Although the clutch material is normal, and one understands intuitively how it will act, the fact that the engine has little torque makes hill-starts really hard, certainly trickier than in F1.
I hate slipping a clutch, but it's almost impossible to avoid completely when setting off from a hill-start in the Rocket.
Ok, so F1 a fair bit easier on the hill starts than the Rocket. Living where I do, I find myself planning "non hill start" routes and keeping the car rolling as much as possible once I'm out!I hate slipping a clutch, but it's almost impossible to avoid completely when setting off from a hill-start in the Rocket.
Crockefeller said:
flemke said:
Rocket hill-start is a different matter. Although the clutch material is normal, and one understands intuitively how it will act, the fact that the engine has little torque makes hill-starts really hard, certainly trickier than in F1.
I hate slipping a clutch, but it's almost impossible to avoid completely when setting off from a hill-start in the Rocket.
Ok, so F1 a fair bit easier on the hill starts than the Rocket. Living where I do, I find myself planning "non hill start" routes and keeping the car rolling as much as possible once I'm out!I hate slipping a clutch, but it's almost impossible to avoid completely when setting off from a hill-start in the Rocket.
crankshaft said:
flemke said:
Rocket hill-start is a different matter... I hate slipping a clutch...
I wouldn't worry about it - some extra rpm and clutch slip has got to better than the chugging of an almost-stalled engine.Anyway, FZR1000 clutches must be relatively inexpensive these days.
Monty Python said:
Seen these before. I'd take the Ueno Clinic car.http://finemodelcars.com/product/mclaren-f1-gtr-ue...
Question to Flemke then.
What "memorabilia" or "model cars" or other McLaren/Porsche/an other accessories do you have? Or do you eschew such items since you can get the real item?
flemke said:
This is true. Even with its long throttle travel, maintaining throttle control when there is (effectively) no resistance is tricky.
Sort of rings a bell. Being an engineer, I can't leave anything alone. So, after giving my 1972 Lotus Europe TC an engine going over, I hit on the brilliant idea of a lightweight flywheel. At the sime time, I removed the awful throttle cable that run through an S bend tube under the chassis, which gave it an unpredictable stick/slip action, and required a silly numbe of return springs. My very ingenious solution was an hydraulic design, with a couple of low friction miniture rams at each end. It work brilliantly. Virtually no friction, beautifully smooth. Then I went and drove the car for the first time. Oh my gawd! The now low throttle throttle, coupled to an engine that would change revs instantly, up and down, made me look like the worst driver ever!! Kangroo starts would have been good. Going over any bump would jog my foot on the gas pedal, and the engine throttle would mimic this, thus more kangaroo actions. The solution was much stronger throttle springs so I had a 'load' to balance against, and a rotary damper on the throttle pedal pivot. After much experimenting, and having to totaly re-programme my pull away technique, and gear changing, it work very well.I have never felt the need to own a model of a car I own and I suspect most supercar owners feel the same.
Memorabilia might be a different subject. It would need to be genuine, original and produced in very limited quantities and not an obvious piece of 'tat'.
Paul
PS. I could, of course, be wrong!
Memorabilia might be a different subject. It would need to be genuine, original and produced in very limited quantities and not an obvious piece of 'tat'.
Paul
PS. I could, of course, be wrong!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff