Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
Hitch said:
Name of user said:
An f1 has just crashed on a New Zealand mclaren rally. Not sure if I'm meant to post photos of the (covered up) car, so I'll refrain from doing so for now.
Out of interest why would you not post the pictures? The F1 is a masterpiece but it is a car not a deity. 
isaldiri said:
flemke said:
Re suspension, the "LM" suspension had springs that were, IIRC, about 60% stiffer than standard and an anti-roll bar that was about 45% stiffer than standard. These alterations made the car more stable, but they added understeer and made the car feel less wieldy than one would want. After all, they were designed for a car with a lot more downforce than the standard car, and for straight-line Vmax stability, neither of which applies to me.
I now have that same stiffer anti-roll bar and, roughly speaking, springs that are about 30% stiffer than standard. Bear inm ind as well that the tyres I run are much stiffer vertically than the standard tyre. We have not done a calculation, but I think the spring rates front and rear are nearly but not quite as stiff as the car had with the LM suspension. Also bear in mind that I now have 4-way adjustable dampers, which I run towards the soft side in high speed and the hard side in low speed.
I may go softer still on the springs, although in doing that I would probably aim for a stiffer bar.
Flemke, did the GTRs/LMs have anti roll bars that the road car didn't have? I always thought the F1 did not have any to be honest, could have sworn I read that in Meaden's article about your car way back when it was in the lighter blue at Bedford... Or am I completely confused.... I now have that same stiffer anti-roll bar and, roughly speaking, springs that are about 30% stiffer than standard. Bear inm ind as well that the tyres I run are much stiffer vertically than the standard tyre. We have not done a calculation, but I think the spring rates front and rear are nearly but not quite as stiff as the car had with the LM suspension. Also bear in mind that I now have 4-way adjustable dampers, which I run towards the soft side in high speed and the hard side in low speed.
I may go softer still on the springs, although in doing that I would probably aim for a stiffer bar.
Have to try to dig up my copy of Driving Ambition for a look later I suppose!Gordon does not like anti-roll bars. When possible he avoids using them; the Rocket has none.
If he cannot avoid using one, he tries to take advantage of chassis stiffness and use just one to control both front and rear. All the F1s, road and GTR, had only a front ARB.
At Le Mans '95, Dave Price (IIRC) tried using a rear bar in addition to the front one, but the driver reported that it hurt the car's handling and thus it was abandoned.
I recently looked under the skin of a long-tail GTR that is currently at McLaren for a ground-up restoration. This car was campaigned heavily in Japan after it was no longer competitive in European series. Over the years many Japanese modifications were made to that car, including the addition of a rear anti-roll bar which I guess must have worked, as it was still connected when the car came from Japan.
Hitch said:
Name of user said:
An f1 has just crashed on a New Zealand mclaren rally. Not sure if I'm meant to post photos of the (covered up) car, so I'll refrain from doing so for now.
Out of interest why would you not post the pictures? The F1 is a masterpiece but it is a car not a deity. flemke said:
I cannot recall what Richard wrote.
Gordon does not like anti-roll bars. When possible he avoids using them; the Rocket has none.
If he cannot avoid using one, he tries to take advantage of chassis stiffness and use just one to control both front and rear. All the F1s, road and GTR, had only a front ARB.
At Le Mans '95, Dave Price (IIRC) tried using a rear bar in addition to the front one, but the driver reported that it hurt the car's handling and thus it was abandoned.
I recently looked under the skin of a long-tail GTR that is currently at McLaren for a ground-up restoration. This car was campaigned heavily in Japan after it was no longer competitive in European series. Over the years many Japanese modifications were made to that car, including the addition of a rear anti-roll bar which I guess must have worked, as it was still connected when the car came from Japan.
Ah ok so no rear ARB only and the gtr's didn't think it worth to fit one either, interesting that. Thanks, glad I remembered at least part of that right! Gordon does not like anti-roll bars. When possible he avoids using them; the Rocket has none.
If he cannot avoid using one, he tries to take advantage of chassis stiffness and use just one to control both front and rear. All the F1s, road and GTR, had only a front ARB.
At Le Mans '95, Dave Price (IIRC) tried using a rear bar in addition to the front one, but the driver reported that it hurt the car's handling and thus it was abandoned.
I recently looked under the skin of a long-tail GTR that is currently at McLaren for a ground-up restoration. This car was campaigned heavily in Japan after it was no longer competitive in European series. Over the years many Japanese modifications were made to that car, including the addition of a rear anti-roll bar which I guess must have worked, as it was still connected when the car came from Japan.
isaldiri said:
flemke said:
I cannot recall what Richard wrote.
Gordon does not like anti-roll bars. When possible he avoids using them; the Rocket has none.
If he cannot avoid using one, he tries to take advantage of chassis stiffness and use just one to control both front and rear. All the F1s, road and GTR, had only a front ARB.
At Le Mans '95, Dave Price (IIRC) tried using a rear bar in addition to the front one, but the driver reported that it hurt the car's handling and thus it was abandoned.
I recently looked under the skin of a long-tail GTR that is currently at McLaren for a ground-up restoration. This car was campaigned heavily in Japan after it was no longer competitive in European series. Over the years many Japanese modifications were made to that car, including the addition of a rear anti-roll bar which I guess must have worked, as it was still connected when the car came from Japan.
Ah ok so no rear ARB only and the gtr's didn't think it worth to fit one either, interesting that. Thanks, glad I remembered at least part of that right! Gordon does not like anti-roll bars. When possible he avoids using them; the Rocket has none.
If he cannot avoid using one, he tries to take advantage of chassis stiffness and use just one to control both front and rear. All the F1s, road and GTR, had only a front ARB.
At Le Mans '95, Dave Price (IIRC) tried using a rear bar in addition to the front one, but the driver reported that it hurt the car's handling and thus it was abandoned.
I recently looked under the skin of a long-tail GTR that is currently at McLaren for a ground-up restoration. This car was campaigned heavily in Japan after it was no longer competitive in European series. Over the years many Japanese modifications were made to that car, including the addition of a rear anti-roll bar which I guess must have worked, as it was still connected when the car came from Japan.
Mezzanine said:
Cannot remember seeing this discussed before in this thread...
'Centro' Porsche
Flemke likes a Porsche, Flemke likes a McLaren therefore...
Not my taste, but an interesting idea and I admire someone for trying. They appear to have done a neat, clean job of it. 'Centro' Porsche
Flemke likes a Porsche, Flemke likes a McLaren therefore...
Name of user said:
I found out about it from a guy who was following the tour, and when the car crashed, everyone was asked not to take photos, so I wasn't too sure.
Whilst Ron may have departed, it seems his control freakery lives on.On a public road with the only F1 on that tour. (Possibly only one in NZ) See how that works out for them.
Rich_W said:
Whilst Ron may have departed, it seems his control freakery lives on.
On a public road with the only F1 on that tour. (Possibly only one in NZ) See how that works out for them.
With the arrival of this Australian one for the tour, it brings the total to 3. 2 live here.On a public road with the only F1 on that tour. (Possibly only one in NZ) See how that works out for them.
The owner of 1 of the local cars, seemingly took his P1 on the tour instead.
vtgts300kw said:
The owner of 1 of the local cars, seemingly took his P1 on the tour instead.
That F1 made an appearance at one of the dinner events at the start of the NZ Tour, with his P1 displayed alongside.
I've seen more photos of the F1 involved in the accident once it was loaded onto the tow truck and indications are of very limited damage to lower left corner at the nose of the car. The front tires were turned hard to left when it came to rest, perhaps helping to prevent more extensive damage to the bodywork that would have otherwise occurred. The press in Australia and New Zealand are certainly making more of it than really needs to be done, but that's their business.
>8^)
ER
Peloton25 said:
vtgts300kw said:
The owner of 1 of the local cars, seemingly took his P1 on the tour instead.
That F1 made an appearance at one of the dinner events at the start of the NZ Tour, with his P1 displayed alongside.I've seen more photos of the F1 involved in the accident once it was loaded onto the tow truck and indications are of very limited damage to lower left corner at the nose of the car. The front tires were turned hard to left when it came to rest, perhaps helping to prevent more extensive damage to the bodywork that would have otherwise occurred. The press in Australia and New Zealand are certainly making more of it than really needs to be done, but that's their business.
>8^)
ER
Can you not post the pictures?
Robster said:
Can you not post the pictures?
I suppose I could as a number of them are in the public domain, attached to various articles that were published. No limitation was placed on the ones I received directly either, but I don't intend to publish any of them myself. The story has already gotten too much attention. Random members of the public even took to chastising another NZ Tour participant via his Instagram account after it was linked to one of the NZ Herald's articles. His account name and the name of the F1 owner are similar which led to the wrong person being implicated. Pretty ridiculous how people get over these situations, jumping to conclusions whenever a valuable or high powered car is involved in an accident.
>8^)
ER
cc8s said:
F, what are your thoughts on Ron leaving; will it positively influence the group? People seem to be giving the impression that there is a notable difference in dynamics already, after the Winter Ball.
A complicated one.I don't have that much more information than what has been in the public domain over the years. Ron strikes me as a version of Bernie without the supposed criminal connections. That is to say:
- he is a true racing man who discovered in himself a gift for doing business,
- he is ambitious and self-confident,
- he is a very tough negotiator,
- he is accustomed to winning, and
- he is a man of his word, but you have to read the small print.
For a while it looked like Ron had played a blinder in teeing up Mercedes to supply engines and substantial funding without gaining voting control of the company. I think the crescendo came in 2007 when Mercedes, having just paid AIUI a very substantial portion of the huge costs of building MTC, had also to pay (or forego) their $40m share of the "Spygate" fine.
Although the Spygate affair was an outrageous ploy contrived by Herr Mosley to cripple a team merely because of his personal animosity towards its principal, with virtually no substance to the ludicrous allegations against Ron and McLaren, the fact is that Ron could have handled it more diplomatically and by doing so the team would probably have suffered a less absurd penalty.
Beyond the direct financial cost, Mercedes was embarrassed by being associated with the incident. One must also bear in mind that, a couple of years earlier, the leadership of Daimler had changed, from a couple of guys who were very supportive of Ron to someone who certainly was not. The Spygate mess gave new boss Zetsche a perfect excuse to change the script.
It did not help that, with Mercedes funding, McLaren had won only 3 (out of a possible 14) WDCs and officially only 1 (in justice, 2, including the 2007 title) WCCs. True, part of that disappointing performance was caused by Ferrari's brilliant but FIA-assisted Schumacher-led team, and then Renault's moment in the sun, but that was what Mercedes were looking at. All they really wanted was to have their name on the door, to which Ron would not agree.
If Ron could not be faulted for Ferrari's brilliance or the FIA's illegitimate collusion, he could be blamed for letting Adrian Newey get away.
It is ironic, and may prove to be even more ironic if Alonso this winter moves to M-B, that it was Martin Whitmarsh who persuaded Merc to supply Brawn with Merc engines for their title-winning 2009 season, which resulted in Merc's buying Brawn, which resulted in Merc's poaching Hamilton and Paddy Lowe from McLaren, which coincided not only with Merc's 3 double titles but also with McLaren's decline which is now three years long.
Then we have Ron's apparent rejection of a good if not ideal title sponsorship proposal in 2013, reportedly from Glaxo, which by the end of next year will have cost the team IRO $200m. This was not unrelated to his losing his job last month.
On the other hand, it was Ron who had the vision to recognise (perhaps in reaction to Mosley's nearly putting him and his 1,000 employees out of business) that McLaren needed to become less dependent on the vagaries of being (almost) only a racing company.
So for Ron I'd say it's a mixed report although, in fairness, one might argue that the team are in incomparably better shape than they would have been if they had tried to operate without him 35 years ago.
As for a new vibe and the "Winter Ball", I appreciate that some people might disagree with me, but I consider such events to be utter BS. Automotive CEO Mike Flewitt has made a number of decisions that were somewhat-to-very harmful to loyal customers, for which he has no legitimate defence. If that sort of high-handed, manipulative, cynical, Ferrari-like behaviour is to be typical of the "new vibe", I would rather not be part of it.
In that sense, I prefer Ron, warts and all. If Ron were to give a long-standing customer the shaft, I believe that he, like Bernie, would at least be man enough to admit that he was doing it, unlike the new regime who just make up mealy-mouth excuses or pretend that it's not happening.
Dusty964 said:
SpeckledJim said:
flemke said:
SpeckledJim said:
With the way a three seater sportscar is packaged, and the benefits of central driving position, I'm amazed it hasn't been done again before.
McLaren owned a patent on the seating layout. Not sure if the patent has expired yet.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff