Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
PAUL500 said:
Calling someone you don't know a presumptuous ass because they question your views is hardly polite.
My problem with your post was not that you questioned any of my actual "views". To the contrary, the thing to which I objected - as I described in some detail in my subsequent reply to robm3 - was that you had presumed what were my views, and your presumptions ("bespoke little club", "great unwashed") were quite wrong.
I am guessing that your presumptions were based on the stereotype in your mind of the kind of person who owns an F1. I say "I am guessing" as you did not offer any reason for ascribing those alleged views to me, you just lobbed them in.
If you are going to disagree with my actual views (as in, opinions and beliefs), that's cool, no problem. Please do not however assert and then criticise what someone else believes unless you have evidence that he or she actually believes it.
PAUL500 said:
With regards giving to charity, by bumping a genuine buyer off the waiting list then making another pay over the odds for said car you have not actually provided a penny to any charity, it would have personally cost you nothing. The secondary buyer was the one donating the money.
Obviously.PAUL500 said:
We can all "claim" to do lots for charity. I will take your answer as a no you will not be passing on the profit you have made from your Mclarens, even though you clearly dislike people who trouser profits from buying and selling such cars, a case of do as I say not as I do it appears.
What I do for charity is the business of the recipients and myself; what you imagine that is is of no concern to me. flemke said:
First, to be honest with you, I am not enthusiastic about the direction in which driving and car development seem to be going: increasing emphasis on turbocharging, hybrids and EVs, growing extent of driver aids, greater speed and power for their own sake whilst achieving pretty much nothing of value. This is before one gets to the matter of worsening traffic density, more politically-correct traffic regulation and the shoddy condition of most roads.
For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
Sounds like you're ready to be further immersed in the modern classic world. Plenty of great drivers cars out there from the 90's onwards. For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
By the way, did I hear right you've got an NSX? 'Flemke-Is this your NSX? may be called for if so.
flemke said:
For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
I'd say its already happened:http://canepa.com/photo-gallery/1969-porsche-917k4...
Quick MOT & job's a good 'un.
robm3 said:
flemke said:
First, to be honest with you, I am not enthusiastic about the direction in which driving and car development seem to be going: increasing emphasis on turbocharging, hybrids and EVs, growing extent of driver aids, greater speed and power for their own sake whilst achieving pretty much nothing of value. This is before one gets to the matter of worsening traffic density, more politically-correct traffic regulation and the shoddy condition of most roads.
For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
Sounds like you're ready to be further immersed in the modern classic world. Plenty of great drivers cars out there from the 90's onwards. For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
By the way, did I hear right you've got an NSX? 'Flemke-Is this your NSX? may be called for if so.
darreni said:
flemke said:
For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
I'd say its already happened:http://canepa.com/photo-gallery/1969-porsche-917k4...
Quick MOT & job's a good 'un.
Of that sort of car, I prefer the 908, but they're all great.
flemke said:
robm3 said:
flemke said:
First, to be honest with you, I am not enthusiastic about the direction in which driving and car development seem to be going: increasing emphasis on turbocharging, hybrids and EVs, growing extent of driver aids, greater speed and power for their own sake whilst achieving pretty much nothing of value. This is before one gets to the matter of worsening traffic density, more politically-correct traffic regulation and the shoddy condition of most roads.
For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
Sounds like you're ready to be further immersed in the modern classic world. Plenty of great drivers cars out there from the 90's onwards. For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
By the way, did I hear right you've got an NSX? 'Flemke-Is this your NSX? may be called for if so.
robm3 said:
flemke said:
robm3 said:
flemke said:
First, to be honest with you, I am not enthusiastic about the direction in which driving and car development seem to be going: increasing emphasis on turbocharging, hybrids and EVs, growing extent of driver aids, greater speed and power for their own sake whilst achieving pretty much nothing of value. This is before one gets to the matter of worsening traffic density, more politically-correct traffic regulation and the shoddy condition of most roads.
For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
Sounds like you're ready to be further immersed in the modern classic world. Plenty of great drivers cars out there from the 90's onwards. For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
By the way, did I hear right you've got an NSX? 'Flemke-Is this your NSX? may be called for if so.
flemke said:
For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
Maybe you can get Adrian Newey to build you a 450hp version of the AM-RB 001? 
Beyond the fact that he is going for a 1:1 hp/kg* ratio that seems to be the goal of the car.*when you think about it it's a bit of an arbitrary ratio, mixing imperial horsepower with metric grams. Wouldn't kW:kg or hp:lbs be more appropriate, or have more significance?
Flemke, as a regular reader and sometime contributor to this thread I've noted you said Ferrari make some cracking cars but you wouldn't buy one. Whilst imo that's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's your decision and I'm cool with that. Anyhow, have you ever owned a Ferrari ? (Apologies if it's mentioned anywhere already I haven't seen it).
Oh and secondly when are you bringing the F1 across the water to Ireland? I'll show you some nice roads.
Oh and secondly when are you bringing the F1 across the water to Ireland? I'll show you some nice roads.
Flemke, as a regular reader and sometime contributor to this thread I've noted you said Ferrari make some cracking cars but you wouldn't buy one. Whilst imo that's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's your decision and I'm cool with that. Anyhow, have you ever owned a Ferrari ? (Apologies if it's mentioned anywhere already I haven't seen it).
Oh and secondly when are you bringing the F1 across the water to Ireland? I'll show you some nice roads.
Oh and secondly when are you bringing the F1 across the water to Ireland? I'll show you some nice roads.
epom said:
Flemke, as a regular reader and sometime contributor to this thread I've noted you said Ferrari make some cracking cars but you wouldn't buy one. Whilst imo that's akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, it's your decision and I'm cool with that. Anyhow, have you ever owned a Ferrari ? (Apologies if it's mentioned anywhere already I haven't seen it).
Oh and secondly when are you bringing the F1 across the water to Ireland? I'll show you some nice roads.
These modern cars are so broadly accomplished that, if you have one but you don't have another, it's not like you're missing much.Oh and secondly when are you bringing the F1 across the water to Ireland? I'll show you some nice roads.
I have owned three Ferraris, the last of which I sold in about 2003 IIRC. At that point I was not really anti-Ferrari, and this last one was a beautiful car, but I found that I was not using it enough. That was before the Ferrari ignominy began to build up steam.
I went from being critical of them after the 2006 US GP tyre fiasco to being contemptuous of them after the 2007 so-called "Spygate" affair. Following that I said that I would never own another, and since then Ferrari's behaviour (mostly regarding how they conduct their road car business) has reinforced my disdain for the company.
As I think I wrote above, I have nothing against the normal people who compose probably 98% of all Ferrari factory employees. It's the management that's the problem, but unfortunately it's usually the management that will make or break an organisation.
I really like Ireland, but it may be a while before I ferry the car over there. Now, if there were a bridge....
flemke said:
PAUL500 said:
So the preference would be to scrap cars instead that customers out there actually want to own?
Not necessarily.McLaren should have done one of two things with the prototypes.
A) Sold them "as-is", with the actual chassis miles remaining on the clock instead of reset to "0", the original, partly worn drive-trains in place, et al. That way they would have been selling them genuinely as used prototypes, rather than as effectively all-new cars retaining merely the original tubs.
B) If they decided that they had to rebuild them into new cars, the quantity of prototypes should have been included within the overall limit of the build-run (i.e., 360 normal P1s plus 15 rebuilt P1 ex-prototypes; something similar for 675LTs).
Therefore the only way to make the car 'viable' for selling to the public would be to replace any and all components that have been trialled or experimented with, and re-flash all the software to production level. On top of this, I doubt the manufacturer would want to sell a car that's clearly had a hard life, with damaged bodywork, trim, tape and stickers all over them, wires all over the place - so by the time the car has been brought to a level they could sell it, it has effectively been rebuilt. Only it seems, in exceptional cases, do the working cars that haven't been rebuilt survive, as typically they are scrapped, to eliminate liability issues and to hide any experimental parts that might not have worked, or are being saved for future models.
I do think selling the prototypes on a strictly limited run is not acceptable, IMO they should be retained by the factory as museum pieces, or sold as static ornaments. They are fascinating cars, giving interesting stories into the development process; rebuilding them wipes out any value they might have had in my view.
darreni said:
flemke said:
For me the ideal modern "aspirational" car would weigh less than 1,000kg, have a NA 4.0 V12 producing 450bhp, would be beautiful to look at and be beautifully made, especially underneath where there is scope for CNC'd uprights, bell cranks, suspension arms and all that sort of mechanical sculpture. I would pay more for that car than I would for a 900 bhp, 1500kg hybrid P1 with IPAS and DRS and "Race Mode" and other pretentious nonsense that I don't want and shall never need. But my ideal car ain't happening, is it?
I'd say its already happened:http://canepa.com/photo-gallery/1969-porsche-917k4...
Quick MOT & job's a good 'un.
RenesisEvo said:
flemke said:
PAUL500 said:
So the preference would be to scrap cars instead that customers out there actually want to own?
Not necessarily.McLaren should have done one of two things with the prototypes.
A) Sold them "as-is", with the actual chassis miles remaining on the clock instead of reset to "0", the original, partly worn drive-trains in place, et al. That way they would have been selling them genuinely as used prototypes, rather than as effectively all-new cars retaining merely the original tubs.
B) If they decided that they had to rebuild them into new cars, the quantity of prototypes should have been included within the overall limit of the build-run (i.e., 360 normal P1s plus 15 rebuilt P1 ex-prototypes; something similar for 675LTs).
Therefore the only way to make the car 'viable' for selling to the public would be to replace any and all components that have been trialled or experimented with, and re-flash all the software to production level. On top of this, I doubt the manufacturer would want to sell a car that's clearly had a hard life, with damaged bodywork, trim, tape and stickers all over them, wires all over the place - so by the time the car has been brought to a level they could sell it, it has effectively been rebuilt. Only it seems, in exceptional cases, do the working cars that haven't been rebuilt survive, as typically they are scrapped, to eliminate liability issues and to hide any experimental parts that might not have worked, or are being saved for future models.
I do think selling the prototypes on a strictly limited run is not acceptable, IMO they should be retained by the factory as museum pieces, or sold as static ornaments. They are fascinating cars, giving interesting stories into the development process; rebuilding them wipes out any value they might have had in my view.
RenesisEvo said:
flemke said:
PAUL500 said:
So the preference would be to scrap cars instead that customers out there actually want to own?
Not necessarily.McLaren should have done one of two things with the prototypes.
A) Sold them "as-is", with the actual chassis miles remaining on the clock instead of reset to "0", the original, partly worn drive-trains in place, et al. That way they would have been selling them genuinely as used prototypes, rather than as effectively all-new cars retaining merely the original tubs.
B) If they decided that they had to rebuild them into new cars, the quantity of prototypes should have been included within the overall limit of the build-run (i.e., 360 normal P1s plus 15 rebuilt P1 ex-prototypes; something similar for 675LTs).
Therefore the only way to make the car 'viable' for selling to the public would be to replace any and all components that have been trialled or experimented with, and re-flash all the software to production level. On top of this, I doubt the manufacturer would want to sell a car that's clearly had a hard life, with damaged bodywork, trim, tape and stickers all over them, wires all over the place - so by the time the car has been brought to a level they could sell it, it has effectively been rebuilt. Only it seems, in exceptional cases, do the working cars that haven't been rebuilt survive, as typically they are scrapped, to eliminate liability issues and to hide any experimental parts that might not have worked, or are being saved for future models.
I do think selling the prototypes on a strictly limited run is not acceptable, IMO they should be retained by the factory as museum pieces, or sold as static ornaments. They are fascinating cars, giving interesting stories into the development process; rebuilding them wipes out any value they might have had in my view.
McLaren took a very small number of parts from each donor prototype, built an entirely new car around those few original pieces, and then:
- claimed to existing owners that these were not "new" cars because the few surviving parts had old chassis numbers, but
- claimed to prospective buyers that these were new cars because virtually every part in them was in fact new.
I'm sorry, but they can't have it both ways.
andyps said:
Flemke, I was reminded of your Austin Healey project over the weekend when seeing a lot of them together, I remember the last time it was mentioned you were having some issues in relation to it. Whilst hoping I am not picking up a sore subject has there been any progress with it?
Not a great deal of progress, Andy. I left the car with a good guy two years ago, at his suggestion. He thought that within a year he'd have been able sufficiently to rebuild the mess that was delivered to me that I could get at least some pleasure out of it.
As I say, that was two years ago. He changed the dampers, which were far too stiff, sorted out an exhaust leak and IIRC an electrical problem. There were a number of other serious defects, however, and I have not heard anything from him since last year.
On the subject of prototypes and selling them to the public, I was under the impression from a magazine article some years ago that there was a significant advantage to the manufacturer to ensure that prototypes are destroyed as they are able to write off large amounts of development costs that way - selling the car meant that these costs have to be absorbed from profit. (The article covered taking a testbed Jaguar XK8 to a scrapyard and watching as a perfectly driveable car was destroyed, if anyone else remembers it). Presumably this doesn't apply to McLaren because the sale price of the car is so much higher than a then-new XK8, or perhaps the rules have changed?
flemke said:
Agreed that some prototypes would be borderline undriveable. At the same time, some are former press cars or validation prototypes that are perfectly usable although not in as-new condition. I think a critical issue would be - regardless of to what degree something was rebuilt - whether it was legitimate for McLaren to reset the odometers in these cars to "0".
McLaren took a very small number of parts from each donor prototype, built an entirely new car around those few original pieces, and then:
- claimed to existing owners that these were not "new" cars because the few surviving parts had old chassis numbers, but
- claimed to prospective buyers that these were new cars because virtually every part in them was in fact new.
I'm sorry, but they can't have it both ways.
I find it equally shady when people restore classic cars and reset the odometer to 0. If I was buying such a car I would want to know the mileage as an integral part of the car's history. Otherwise it's simply a form of fraud, and should be treated the same as if some back-street trader was clocking cars.McLaren took a very small number of parts from each donor prototype, built an entirely new car around those few original pieces, and then:
- claimed to existing owners that these were not "new" cars because the few surviving parts had old chassis numbers, but
- claimed to prospective buyers that these were new cars because virtually every part in them was in fact new.
I'm sorry, but they can't have it both ways.
In McLaren's case, I guess you need to ask to what extent the cars were rebuilt, which parts were reused or replaced, whether a particular chassis was road registered (to give it a traceable history with the DVLA), and whether you can assign continuity to a vehicle identity if enough of those elements have been replaced or swapped between cars over time.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff