Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
droopsnoot said:
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?
I would expect all the expenses of product development to be written off regardless of whether a particular car was sold or destroyed; costs are costs. The only thing I can think of wrt the Jaguar situation is that, possibly, by destroying the unit the company were able to write off a big chunk of development expense immediately whereas if they had retained the development car they would have been required to amortise the development expense over the life of that model's production, potentially many years.
That is just a guess in trying to explain what happened. Over time Jag should have been able to write off all development expense in any case.
thegreenhell said:
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.
Wrt to continuity issue, the DVSA has a system whereby various fundamental parts of the car (chassis, brakes, steering box, engine) are given different "points", and in order to retain the original VIN the rebuilt car must qualify for a minimum number of points. The system does however allow that replacement parts that are identical to the originals be given the same points as if they were the originals. For the DVSA, the rebuilt McLaren prototypes should have been allowed to retain their VINs.
Let's assume that the only thing that survived from the donor car was the tub, and that, owing to its design integrity, the tub was in perfect condition, indistinguishable from one that had never been used.
If they had merely cleaned up an old prototype, but it clearly remained a used prototype, then selling it as a runner rather than putting it in a warehouse to gather dust would be maybe in a grey area as far as whether it should be counted against the production run limit.
When the rebuilt car was for all intents and purposes new, however, it is not possible to hide behind the "but it's only a used prototype" defence.
To take the extent of the rebuilding a step further to resetting the odometer to "0" makes the situation black-and-white. In doing that you have made (or at least tried to make) a new car, and that car has got to be considered part of the official production run.
The prototype discussion is a mine field 
I looked a buying an MSO 650 spider that was the launch car for a run of 50 cars. It had been reworked cosmetically to tidy it up, but there were very little mechanical changes and no change to the odometer. They also refused to recognise it as one of the 50 cars.
I alos recently tried to acquire one of the 675LT spider "factory" cars and was told it was not available
Interstingly I note they are selling a 675LT coupe prototype with full disclosure and no odometer change
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/m...
The above seem acceptable and "above board"
However rebuild a P1 prototype, resetting to odometer and selling it off as new is pushing the boundaries
They ought not to reset the odometer and some how mark the vehicle so it is obvious what it is
BTW Aston have done similar tricks with even less disclosure
I looked a buying an MSO 650 spider that was the launch car for a run of 50 cars. It had been reworked cosmetically to tidy it up, but there were very little mechanical changes and no change to the odometer. They also refused to recognise it as one of the 50 cars.
I alos recently tried to acquire one of the 675LT spider "factory" cars and was told it was not available
Interstingly I note they are selling a 675LT coupe prototype with full disclosure and no odometer change
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/m...
The above seem acceptable and "above board"
However rebuild a P1 prototype, resetting to odometer and selling it off as new is pushing the boundaries
They ought not to reset the odometer and some how mark the vehicle so it is obvious what it is
BTW Aston have done similar tricks with even less disclosure
mikey k said:
Interstingly I note they are selling a 675LT coupe prototype with full disclosure and no odometer change
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/m...
The above seem acceptable and "above board"
However rebuild a P1 prototype, resetting to odometer and selling it off as new is pushing the boundaries
They ought not to reset the odometer and some how mark the vehicle so it is obvious what it is
That car afaik was fully rebuilt with odometer reset. The 675 VINs are immediately obvious which cars are out of the originally planned 500 (or 1000) so there's no point in trying to hide it's an ex factory prototype otherwise perhaps it might be made less obvious. In the case of that exact car I was told the rebuilt prototype status was the reason why the seller was expecting a further premium over that of a 'normal' 675...http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/m...
The above seem acceptable and "above board"
However rebuild a P1 prototype, resetting to odometer and selling it off as new is pushing the boundaries
They ought not to reset the odometer and some how mark the vehicle so it is obvious what it is
isaldiri said:
mikey k said:
Interstingly I note they are selling a 675LT coupe prototype with full disclosure and no odometer change
http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/m...
The above seem acceptable and "above board"
However rebuild a P1 prototype, resetting to odometer and selling it off as new is pushing the boundaries
They ought not to reset the odometer and some how mark the vehicle so it is obvious what it is
That car afaik was fully rebuilt with odometer reset. The 675 VINs are immediately obvious which cars are out of the originally planned 500 (or 1000) so there's no point in trying to hide it's an ex factoryprototype. In the case of that exact car I was told the rebuilt prototype status was the reason why the seller was expecting a further premium over that of a 'normal' 675...http://www.pistonheads.com/classifieds/used-cars/m...
The above seem acceptable and "above board"
However rebuild a P1 prototype, resetting to odometer and selling it off as new is pushing the boundaries
They ought not to reset the odometer and some how mark the vehicle so it is obvious what it is
So it's been bullyrammed for thousands of miles as a develop,ent hack and he wants MORE for it?
Championship standards stroking....
Soov535 said:
So it's been bullyrammed for thousands of miles as a develop,ent hack and he wants MORE for it?
Championship standards stroking....
isaldiri said:
Soov535 said:
So it's been bullyrammed for thousands of miles as a develop,ent hack and he wants MORE for it?
Championship standards stroking....
isaldiri said:
Soov535 said:
So it's been bullyrammed for thousands of miles as a develop,ent hack and he wants MORE for it?
Championship standards stroking....
flemke said:
isaldiri said:
Soov535 said:
So it's been bullyrammed for thousands of miles as a develop,ent hack and he wants MORE for it?
Championship standards stroking....
Flemke, this may have been asked before (apologies if so), but despite being a V8 rather than a V12 an Ultima seems to tick many of your criteria; have you considered one? Would you consider a special substituting in an engine more to your liking? The history of Albert and Edward would tie in nicely, too.
McAndy said:
Flemke, this may have been asked before (apologies if so), but despite being a V8 rather than a V12 an Ultima seems to tick many of your criteria; have you considered one? Would you consider a special substituting in an engine more to your liking? The history of Albert and Edward would tie in nicely, too.
A long time ago, I want to say 2002, I went up to Hinckley, met with Ted Marlow who was a very nice fellow. I took one out for a drive. I liked the concept, and the car as you suggest performs impressively.
The thing that killed it for me was the looks.
I appreciate that with low volumes it would have been difficult to justify expensive models and moulds. It's therefore understandable that the car is rather slab-sided, but that quality was what put me off.
flemke said:
A long time ago, I want to say 2002, I went up to Hinckley, met with Ted Marlow who was a very nice fellow.
I took one out for a drive. I liked the concept, and the car as you suggest performs impressively.
The thing that killed it for me was the looks.
I appreciate that with low volumes it would have been difficult to justify expensive models and moulds. It's therefore understandable that the car is rather slab-sided, but that quality was what put me off.
Fair dos. Given the concept is sound, would you ever consider investing in a new design and moulds for you (and subsequently them)?I took one out for a drive. I liked the concept, and the car as you suggest performs impressively.
The thing that killed it for me was the looks.
I appreciate that with low volumes it would have been difficult to justify expensive models and moulds. It's therefore understandable that the car is rather slab-sided, but that quality was what put me off.
I own an Ultima GTR. I fully understand where Flemke is coming from.
The design is a homage to the mid 1980's Group C cars and is therefore 30 years old. The aerodynamics are of a similar time.
To create a car with modern lines and aero would require a ground up approach starting with the chassis. This effectively means a completely new car.
The Ultima remains a rapid car due to two things. Low weight and big power. Nothing high tech, just brute force.
They turn heads like very little else on the road but could not be described as an 'everyday' super car.
That said, I am writing this from the Hotel de France on an extended Le Mans Classic trip. Judging by the number of photos taken of it most find it very interesting/different.
The design is a homage to the mid 1980's Group C cars and is therefore 30 years old. The aerodynamics are of a similar time.
To create a car with modern lines and aero would require a ground up approach starting with the chassis. This effectively means a completely new car.
The Ultima remains a rapid car due to two things. Low weight and big power. Nothing high tech, just brute force.
They turn heads like very little else on the road but could not be described as an 'everyday' super car.
That said, I am writing this from the Hotel de France on an extended Le Mans Classic trip. Judging by the number of photos taken of it most find it very interesting/different.
McAndy said:
flemke said:
A long time ago, I want to say 2002, I went up to Hinckley, met with Ted Marlow who was a very nice fellow.
I took one out for a drive. I liked the concept, and the car as you suggest performs impressively.
The thing that killed it for me was the looks.
I appreciate that with low volumes it would have been difficult to justify expensive models and moulds. It's therefore understandable that the car is rather slab-sided, but that quality was what put me off.
Fair dos. Given the concept is sound, would you ever consider investing in a new design and moulds for you (and subsequently them)?I took one out for a drive. I liked the concept, and the car as you suggest performs impressively.
The thing that killed it for me was the looks.
I appreciate that with low volumes it would have been difficult to justify expensive models and moulds. It's therefore understandable that the car is rather slab-sided, but that quality was what put me off.
I am still waiting for it.
Storer said:
I own an Ultima GTR. I fully understand where Flemke is coming from.
The design is a homage to the mid 1980's Group C cars and is therefore 30 years old. The aerodynamics are of a similar time.
To create a car with modern lines and aero would require a ground up approach starting with the chassis. This effectively means a completely new car.
The Ultima remains a rapid car due to two things. Low weight and big power. Nothing high tech, just brute force.
They turn heads like very little else on the road but could not be described as an 'everyday' super car.
That said, I am writing this from the Hotel de France on an extended Le Mans Classic trip. Judging by the number of photos taken of it most find it very interesting/different.
The design is a homage to the mid 1980's Group C cars and is therefore 30 years old. The aerodynamics are of a similar time.
To create a car with modern lines and aero would require a ground up approach starting with the chassis. This effectively means a completely new car.
The Ultima remains a rapid car due to two things. Low weight and big power. Nothing high tech, just brute force.
They turn heads like very little else on the road but could not be described as an 'everyday' super car.
That said, I am writing this from the Hotel de France on an extended Le Mans Classic trip. Judging by the number of photos taken of it most find it very interesting/different.
flemke said:
They've already been mentioned on here somewhere, but I have a Gen 1 Type-R and a Gen 2 regular car: two of the best cars I have ever driven on the road.
Hi flemke,I have the car in between your two NSX - a (December 1999) Type S - which (unusually) does not have power steering. Do you prefer the steering / suspension / balance / seats / feeling of your earlier or later NSX?
dobly said:
flemke said:
They've already been mentioned on here somewhere, but I have a Gen 1 Type-R and a Gen 2 regular car: two of the best cars I have ever driven on the road.
Hi flemke,I have the car in between your two NSX - a (December 1999) Type S - which (unusually) does not have power steering. Do you prefer the steering / suspension / balance / seats / feeling of your earlier or later NSX?
As a generalisation, the three types that I have driven were all clearly of the same mentality. For me, two of the best qualities of the NSX are the way that all the major systems work with and complement each other, and the chassis poise. These qualities were present in the three tyres that I have driven.
Of the three, the Gen II T-R is in my opinion the least nice car to drive, notwithstanding the fulsome praise many journalists gave it.
What I was trying to get at was in your opinion, is the special nature of the early R as successful as a road car, or does the later standard NSX beat it as being more sorted package, especially in the steering, ride and handling departments ?
Sure, the 3.0 in the Type R is special, but is it more usable than the 3.2 of later cars?
Similarly, the steering of the early Type R is a bit special - contrasted with the electrical assistance of the later standard car - which do you prefer?
The Type R seats are the same as in my Type S - just different covers. I find them very comfortable, and very transmissive of what the car is doing underneath you.
That sort of thing.
Sure, the 3.0 in the Type R is special, but is it more usable than the 3.2 of later cars?
Similarly, the steering of the early Type R is a bit special - contrasted with the electrical assistance of the later standard car - which do you prefer?
The Type R seats are the same as in my Type S - just different covers. I find them very comfortable, and very transmissive of what the car is doing underneath you.
That sort of thing.
Edited by dobly on Sunday 17th July 03:21
flemke said:
McAndy said:
flemke said:
A long time ago, I want to say 2002, I went up to Hinckley, met with Ted Marlow who was a very nice fellow.
I took one out for a drive. I liked the concept, and the car as you suggest performs impressively.
The thing that killed it for me was the looks.
I appreciate that with low volumes it would have been difficult to justify expensive models and moulds. It's therefore understandable that the car is rather slab-sided, but that quality was what put me off.
Fair dos. Given the concept is sound, would you ever consider investing in a new design and moulds for you (and subsequently them)?I took one out for a drive. I liked the concept, and the car as you suggest performs impressively.
The thing that killed it for me was the looks.
I appreciate that with low volumes it would have been difficult to justify expensive models and moulds. It's therefore understandable that the car is rather slab-sided, but that quality was what put me off.
I am still waiting for it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff