Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)

[flemke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

hanks, but you might want to go back and edit your original post. You said you pid £600 for that. Typo ?

My mistake - have found invoice, the price was £1105.

[Sway]

Cheers Flemke.

If I'm looking at that correctly the whole 'subframe' the front wishbones mount to can move diagonally when necessary, controlled by the mounting bushes that subframe uses to connect to the chassis?

If so, it really is a very small movement, which I gather has quite a large impact on the ride comfort experienced?

[LarJammer]

Sway said:

Cheers Flemke.

If I'm looking at that correctly the whole 'subframe' the front wishbones mount to can move diagonally when necessary, controlled by the mounting bushes that subframe uses to connect to the chassis?

If so, it really is a very small movement, which I gather has quite a large impact on the ride comfort experienced?

Its pretty much a copy of the NSX setup (of which gordon murray was a fan). It allows the upper and lower wishbones to pivot and takes out virtually all the harshness when hitting a bump. The honda setup is called a compliance pivot.

[Rich_W]

Flemke

Since we're taking questions again. Something I pondered last night at Tescos

What fuel do you chuck in the car? And have you noticed a difference in performance when using other manufacturers or specifications? Have you ever tried a very high octane or custom race fuel as a (Probably expensive) experiment?

[flemke]

LarJammer said:

Sway said:

Cheers Flemke.

If I'm looking at that correctly the whole 'subframe' the front wishbones mount to can move diagonally when necessary, controlled by the mounting bushes that subframe uses to connect to the chassis?

If so, it really is a very small movement, which I gather has quite a large impact on the ride comfort experienced?

Its pretty much a copy of the NSX setup (of which gordon murray was a fan). It allows the upper and lower wishbones to pivot and takes out virtually all the harshness when hitting a bump. The honda setup is called a compliance pivot.

NSX "compliance pivot":


The concept for the "asymmetrical bushes" in the F1 came from an unpatented Lotus design. The objective was to reduce by a specific amount radial compliance whilst maintaining axial compliance. In the F1 they also used this sort of bush for the engine mounts to the rear of the tub. I was not aware of a direct connection to the NSX.

[flemke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Ah ha - we learn something new.

Flemke is single.


There is no way in hell you could leave an invoice for a new hand grip on a hand brake for over a grand laying around with a Mrs in tow !

There might be some truth in that!

[Joe911]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

There is no way in hell you could leave an invoice for a new hand grip on a hand brake for over a grand laying around with a Mrs in tow !

Depends how much her last hair cut cost!

[flemke]

Sway said:

Cheers Flemke.

If I'm looking at that correctly the whole 'subframe' the front wishbones mount to can move diagonally when necessary, controlled by the mounting bushes that subframe uses to connect to the chassis?

If so, it really is a very small movement, which I gather has quite a large impact on the ride comfort experienced?

I am not sure what "small" means in this context. The amount of radial compliance in the bushes was several times less than the axial compliance. The standard car's ride comfort is surprisingly good, in part because of these bushes, in part the choice of springs and dampers, but let's not forget those tall aspect ratio, thin wall tyres.

[flemke]

Rich_W said:

Flemke

Since we're taking questions again. Something I pondered last night at Tescos

What fuel do you chuck in the car? And have you noticed a difference in performance when using other manufacturers or specifications? Have you ever tried a very high octane or custom race fuel as a (Probably expensive) experiment?

Shell V-Power normally. I could not say with confidence that it makes an actual difference, although in my imagination it does.
No, I have never tried racing fuel. The engine does not need to produce more power than with pump fuel, plus I wouldn't know whether it would need to be adjusted in order to make use of such fuels.

[Sway]

flemke said:

Sway said:

Cheers Flemke.

If I'm looking at that correctly the whole 'subframe' the front wishbones mount to can move diagonally when necessary, controlled by the mounting bushes that subframe uses to connect to the chassis?

If so, it really is a very small movement, which I gather has quite a large impact on the ride comfort experienced?

I am not sure what "small" means in this context. The amount of radial compliance in the bushes was several times less than the axial compliance. The standard car's ride comfort is surprisingly good, in part because of these bushes, in part the choice of springs and dampers, but let's not forget those tall aspect ratio, thin wall tyres.

I suppose from my perspective, I've read a fair amount about the benefits of such an approach, and had imagined a longitudinal movement at full bump of perhaps an unreasonable amount. As such, when looking at the drawing (and allowing for the fact that any permitted movement will be magnified by being applied through a lever), I suppose I'm surprised that what appears to be perhaps 20-30mm longitudinal movement at the wheel through the full suspension travel is 'worth' the level of effort to design and manufacture. Then again, I've read about it a lot because of the effect on the driver, for whom that movement/effect seems to be noticeable compared to similar period cars. Plus we know that 'reasonable level of effort' didn't really apply to the team!

You've mentioned a fair few times that the mods you've made have made the car less of a GT but at the benefit of more predictable and consistent handling response - have you explored whether some of the standard F1 'notoriety' for somewhat snappy or unpredictable responses is due to this permitted movement? It'd be fairly easy to check - swap the bushes for ones made of metal and go for a drive!

[McAndy]

flemke said:

Agreed.
The question is, to what extent is value enhanced by "provenance" (the car having had a meaningful part in history or having been owned by a famous person), and to what extent is value diminished because the car is, by definition, a less good product than the finished version?

These imperfections seem to be subjective. It's a never ending discussion in the classic car world: restore or retain? Each to their own, seems to be the answer. There'll always be somebody willing to pay for one or the other.

[crosseyedlion]

McAndy said:

These imperfections seem to be subjective. It's a never ending discussion in the classic car world: restore or retain? Each to their own, seems to be the answer. There'll always be somebody willing to pay for one or the other.

Its not quite the same though, these are cars which would have experienced severe abuse in all likelihood. Whereas a classic with 'patina' has probably experienced a normal useage.

Things fail quickly if you abuse them, can last almost forever if you don't.

[hurstg01]

Jonesy23 said:

flemke said:

Drawings of the nut-and-bolt nitty-gritty are hard to come by, apart from at McLaren, as I said. I'm not sure how the one that you have found, of the pedal assembly, got into the internet domain, but drawings like that of the rest of the car are uncommon. I have a few around here somewhere, but not sure where. I can recall the drawing of the steering wheel assembly, which despite its simple appearance must comprise at least a hundred parts.

The last time I saw that exact drawing of the pedal assembly it was on actual paper, along with a brake pedal arm being used as a paperweight as the anodising process had eroded it.

That would have been at Ilford Engineering; they were churning out all sorts of bits so had tanks, pedals, rear grills and other metal things going though. I have memories that they were complaining about having to re-manufacture a whole pile of tanks of some sort (oil tank maybe?) because the welds had been ground/polished flat and the spec & QA wanted them visible as that way they could see how good they actually were.

There was chat at the time about prototyping they were doing for Lotus on what became the Elise.

So if we're wondering where the drawing came from that's one possible source.

Or an Engineers Manual / Parts list. I don't have one for the road car, but have one for a 1996 GTR and an Engineers Manual, Parts List and Gearbox Manual for the 1997 GTR's.

My pedal arm came from what looks like a road car, as it doesn't match the 1997 GTR pedals and is close to the 1996 GTR's brake pedal

1996 GTR





1997 GTR Engineers Manual

[Jonesy23]

The difference being the version in that manual doesn't have the 'F1 McLaren' logo bit in the bottom left that the scan has.

Though the scan also doesn't have the rest of the drawing outline template and description and 'not to scale' and so on that the proper production prints did so it will be from yet another source. And I'm sure they had some sort of stylised side view of the car as the logo? (Actually a lot like that one on the first GTR picture)

I see the pedal arm still makes a decent paperweight!

[flemke]

Sway said:

I suppose from my perspective, I've read a fair amount about the benefits of such an approach, and had imagined a longitudinal movement at full bump of perhaps an unreasonable amount. As such, when looking at the drawing (and allowing for the fact that any permitted movement will be magnified by being applied through a lever), I suppose I'm surprised that what appears to be perhaps 20-30mm longitudinal movement at the wheel through the full suspension travel is 'worth' the level of effort to design and manufacture. Then again, I've read about it a lot because of the effect on the driver, for whom that movement/effect seems to be noticeable compared to similar period cars. Plus we know that 'reasonable level of effort' didn't really apply to the team!

You've mentioned a fair few times that the mods you've made have made the car less of a GT but at the benefit of more predictable and consistent handling response - have you explored whether some of the standard F1 'notoriety' for somewhat snappy or unpredictable responses is due to this permitted movement? It'd be fairly easy to check - swap the bushes for ones made of metal and go for a drive!

The purpose of the special bushes was to prevent migration of the contact patch, and thus effective geometry, under braking. It wasn't related to ride comfort (except that they wanted not to compromise ride comfort by reducing compliance beyond what was "normal" for a road car).

The main reason for the handling issue was the tyres, and the wrong relationship between front and rear corner force stiffness. For the driver, this is exaggerated because the driver sits very far forward in the wheelbase and also the driver's head is low in relation to the centre of mass.

[hurstg01]

Jonesy23 said:

The difference being the version in that manual doesn't have the 'F1 McLaren' logo bit in the bottom left that the scan has.

Though the scan also doesn't have the rest of the drawing outline template and description and 'not to scale' and so on that the proper production prints did so it will be from yet another source. And I'm sure they had some sort of stylised side view of the car as the logo? (Actually a lot like that one on the first GTR picture)

I see the pedal arm still makes a decent paperweight!

They're all the real deal

[Jonesy23]

Obviously! Just interesting to see the differences with the logos and so on. The logo is one bit I particularly remember as it was a nice little touch to throw on the template.

[Joe911]

Outrageous copy of central driving seat configuration!
Interesting how easily Parker exits the car from the central seat.

https://youtu.be/Onhe7w190DY?t=269

[hurstg01]

flemke said:

Sway said:

Couldn't find a digital download however? I'm there in a couple of weeks for a presentation, I'll see if I can obtain a copy.

Is there a way to use PH to host images? If so, I'll scan and post here.

Here's the front page from my copy - Flemke has added the 3 assembly pictures already

[douglas111]

Saw a 488 on the motorway at the weekend. It seemed about 50% wider than the Focus it overtook, which surprised me, especially when you consider the average family car like a Focus has also got bigger in recent years. It looked a bit comical tbh, like something escaped from a Batman film set. I'm not singling out Ferrari, cos it's the same for most modern supercars, and the Lambos/Koenigseggs are even bigger. I just don't see the attraction for UK roads. A standard Vantage or 911 would be about my limit I think, not that I'm in such a fortunate position.

The F1 is about the width of a modern Golf which seems about right. Will supercars ever return to something more appealing?

Been enjoying recent discussions, especially design. It's opened my mind to the topic.