Discussion
Thanks Flemke, it does sound as though some of the systems are getting to the stage where the combination of usefulness and effectiveness means they are worth thinking about adding even to a very focused driver's car.
Given this, I think that where such systems may have some merit is if they can help avoid engineering compromise which dilutes the driving experience. Whilst many of us would/do live with compromises in comfort and day to day usability for the sake of a more engaging driving experience, there's always a compromise line drawn.
I'm not sure I'm in a position to relate this to the F1, but in most road cars suspension is not as firm as it could for those rare well-surfaced roads in order to cope with the majority of battlefields we call B roads. I suspect that one could make similar observations about steering rack rates, throttle sensitivity etc.
Which leads me to a follow on question. It sounds as though the F1 has taken most of these things as far as is practical for a road car in the direction of driver focus. That is, for example, that the steering sneeze "damping" has as you say been minimised. Do you feel that most reasonably fit and competent drivers could adapt to these controls given time or would they be an unsurmountable obstacle for many?
Stuart
p.s. I could be mistaken but I understand that brake-based stability control is relatively trivial to fit once ABS is in place. I would also imagine that the packaging is pretty tidy now that it is so widely fitted to mainstream cars. No idea on weight gain though.
Given this, I think that where such systems may have some merit is if they can help avoid engineering compromise which dilutes the driving experience. Whilst many of us would/do live with compromises in comfort and day to day usability for the sake of a more engaging driving experience, there's always a compromise line drawn.
I'm not sure I'm in a position to relate this to the F1, but in most road cars suspension is not as firm as it could for those rare well-surfaced roads in order to cope with the majority of battlefields we call B roads. I suspect that one could make similar observations about steering rack rates, throttle sensitivity etc.
Which leads me to a follow on question. It sounds as though the F1 has taken most of these things as far as is practical for a road car in the direction of driver focus. That is, for example, that the steering sneeze "damping" has as you say been minimised. Do you feel that most reasonably fit and competent drivers could adapt to these controls given time or would they be an unsurmountable obstacle for many?
Stuart
p.s. I could be mistaken but I understand that brake-based stability control is relatively trivial to fit once ABS is in place. I would also imagine that the packaging is pretty tidy now that it is so widely fitted to mainstream cars. No idea on weight gain though.
daveco said:
Flemke, is there any car you would swap your McLaren F1 for, or any other car you aspire to drive/own?
No road cars interest me nearly as much.
In a perfect world, there are some older cars which would be nice to experience, but ownership brings with it responsibilities: refurbishment, maintenance, regular usage. I couldn't own just to own.
There are many highly evocative vintage race cars with which one could adore. My problem with them is that, IMO, these cars deserve to be not just driven, but driven properly. Like most other petrolheads, I am not capable of driving these cars the way that they should be driven.
One could say that, as it is, few of these cars are driven as they ought to be, but at least I'm not contributing to that shortcoming.
Amongst the many racing cars that mean something to me, I could mention: 250SWB, 908/03, 312PB, Chaparral 2F, certain '37 Chevies, various McLaren M8s, midgets and sprint cars from the '50s, Lotus 49 and 72, Brabham fan car, and let's not forget the Duckham's Special from above.
stuart b said:
Which leads me to a follow on question. It sounds as though the F1 has taken most of these things as far as is practical for a road car in the direction of driver focus. That is, for example, that the steering sneeze "damping" has as you say been minimised. Do you feel that most reasonably fit and competent drivers could adapt to these controls given time or would they be an unsurmountable obstacle for many?
Stuart
p.s. I could be mistaken but I understand that brake-based stability control is relatively trivial to fit once ABS is in place. I would also imagine that the packaging is pretty tidy now that it is so widely fitted to mainstream cars. No idea on weight gain though.
Stuart
p.s. I could be mistaken but I understand that brake-based stability control is relatively trivial to fit once ABS is in place. I would also imagine that the packaging is pretty tidy now that it is so widely fitted to mainstream cars. No idea on weight gain though.
Stuart,
WRT brake-based stability systems, ABS itself requires the addition of valves and a pump, doesn't it?
Could most reasonably fit and competent drivers adapt to driving...an F1?
Almost anyone gets better at almost anything through practice and application, so some adaptation would take place.
Also, it's not as if the car were beyond drivability.
On the other hand, if I may I'll offer a personal reference point: I believe that I have driven F1s more miles than all but either two or three people in the world; I have also driven a reasonable range of other powerful cars, have taken quite a bit of advanced instruction, raced, etc. I think it would be fair to say that - relative at least to the average driver - I'm more skilled behind the wheel.
Nevertheless, every time that I start the engine in the F1 I feel challenged, and I take the job at hand quite seriously because that is necessary.
I have never driven a road car that was even half as involving and challenging to drive well as the F1 is. That is part of its appeal, of course.
There certainly is scope for most drivers to adapt themselves to the car to varying degrees. With its power/weight, lack of ABS and TC, heavy brakes and steering, carbon clutch, and super-sensitive throttle that requires one to shift gear with considerable precision, I'm not sure what percentage of those who tried would complete their adaptation programmes before they broke something.
MrKipling43 said:
If I owned a car like the McLaren F1 but I was popping to town in my 'practical' car, I would pick up the keys, walk out of the front door, see the McLaren F1 and decide to take the long way round.
Do you have this problem?
Do you have this problem?
Not exactly.
You wouldn't use an F1 around town - you just wouldn't. Hard to park, poor rear quarter vision, carbon clutch, high 1st gear "crawling pace", low clearance for speed bumps and steep ramp angles - this is not a domesticated beast.
At the same time, you'd rather not do motorway driving, apart from on the Autobahn, because it's just a waste.
That leaves you with driving on (smoother) A- and B-roads, for which it is great.
It depends on the structure of your life. If you commuted between your home in the country and a readily accessible parking spot, with mostly open country in between, you might use it every day. If you did that, however, over time the car would seem less special.
Myself, I tend to plan ahead to go for a pleasure drive, depending on expected weather and traffic conditions.
flemke said:
You wouldn't use an F1 around town - you just wouldn't. Hard to park, poor rear quarter vision, carbon clutch, high 1st gear "crawling pace", low clearance for speed bumps and steep ramp angles - this is not a domesticated beast.
I was just about to ask about whether - notwithstanding people's lack of repect for others P&J - the F1 could ever be used as an 'everyday' car. It must be a challenge to say the least - should you be brave enough to try it! - to reverse park into a space in Sainsbury's.
A couple more questions, if I may, do the windows open, or do you have aircon? It must be uncomfortable if the answer is 'no' to both. Also, why is it your opinion that the engine is (I think you said) the best? Not after an argument or owt, just interested that's all.
antony moxey said:
I was just about to ask about whether - notwithstanding people's lack of repect for others P&J - the F1 could ever be used as an 'everyday' car. It must be a challenge to say the least - should you be brave enough to try it! - to reverse park into a space in Sainsbury's.
A couple more questions, if I may, do the windows open, or do you have aircon? It must be uncomfortable if the answer is 'no' to both. Also, why is it your opinion that the engine is (I think you said) the best? Not after an argument or owt, just interested that's all.
A couple more questions, if I may, do the windows open, or do you have aircon? It must be uncomfortable if the answer is 'no' to both. Also, why is it your opinion that the engine is (I think you said) the best? Not after an argument or owt, just interested that's all.
Antony,
Yes, reverse parking is not fun. It never is in a mid-engined car, but in this case the view directly behind you is the inside of your own skull. One might install a camera in the rear grille, connected to a screen visible to the driver, depending on the nature of one's usage.
Yes the windows open. They are partial windows, as you can see in the blue car:
The lower, central section is the part that goes down. As you can probably tell, the part that opens could not be any larger, because the angles of the door shape would not allow the moving window to descend into it any further than it does now.
The road cars have a/c, excepting the LMs. It works fairly well, although on a hot day with two passengers, it does not stay truly cool for long.
You tend not to run with the windows open, for two reasons. The first is that when one or both windows are down, there is an odd and slightly unpleasant acoustic phenomenon whch creates a "woofling" sound.
The second is that, with the windows down, within the car a draft is created. This draft in itself is no problem, but it draws into the cabin the aroma from the radiators. If you are familiar with the unique smell of a car radiator, you will probably agree that it is not particularly nice.
The engine. This engine has continuous power, with no dips or holes. It is torquey across the range. The power delivery is very smooth. It revs very, very quickly (especially considering its capacity). It sounds great, and it seems to be the most robust part of the whole car - they don't break or even need any serious maintenance. It has all the strengths of normal aspiration, but gives performance that you would never need to better with forced induction.
There is a video of an interview with Mika Hakkinen, who talks about how, in a race car, "you never have enough power". Then asked to comment on the F1, he makes clear that as a road car it "definitely has enough power". Enough power for Mika is enough for me.
In reply to a question from the head service man at McLaren, Paul Rosche (BMW Motorsport chief engine designer) said that the engine would require a major service no more frequently than once every 250,000 kms, if that. During testing, BMW subjected the F1's engine to running abuse over a period that was 4 times as long as their normal testing regime; the engine held up perfectly.
All together, it's certainly the best road car engine that I have ever driven, and you'll hear many people with almost encyclopaedic experience of driving "supercars" who will tell you the same thing.
To put it differently, I'e never heard anyone who's driven an F1 say that he'd experienced a better engine.
flemke said:
On the other hand, if I may I'll offer a personal reference point: I believe that I have driven F1s more miles than all but either two or three people in the world; I have also driven a reasonable range of other powerful cars, have taken quite a bit of advanced instruction, raced, etc. I think it would be fair to say that - relative at least to the average driver - I'm more skilled behind the wheel.
Nevertheless, every time that I start the engine in the F1 I feel challenged, and I take the job at hand quite seriously because that is necessary.
I have never driven a road car that was even half as involving and challenging to drive well as the F1 is. That is part of its appeal, of course.
Nevertheless, every time that I start the engine in the F1 I feel challenged, and I take the job at hand quite seriously because that is necessary.
I have never driven a road car that was even half as involving and challenging to drive well as the F1 is. That is part of its appeal, of course.
That puts it nicely into perspective! - thanks.
On the brake-based stability thing. Yes you're of course right about the kit needed for ABS (together with wheel speed sensors). I meant that if one accepts that ABS is worth having (as you mentioned) then the additional bits (yaw sensor, additional electronics etc) were a small incremental price.
Stuart
stuart b said:
On the brake-based stability thing. Yes you're of course right about the kit needed for ABS (together with wheel speed sensors). I meant that if one accepts that ABS is worth having (as you mentioned) then the additional bits (yaw sensor, additional electronics etc) were a small incremental price.
Stuart
Stuart
Understood.
I have the sense that, even if driver aids were weightless, GM were be disinclined to use them in his cars. It seems (to me) that their ability to intercede and rescue a driver from the unwisdom of his ways is something which he finds impure.
When it comes to the reasons that most of us like cars and motoring, they boil down mostly to aesthetic sensations. They're qualitative; we seek them for their own sake; they are not the practical means to an end.
As such, one can understand why he would think (if he does) that for a driving experience to reach its peak potential, it must be pure, and must essentially derive from the driver's actions.
flemke said:
The engine. This engine has continuous power, with no dips or holes. It is torquey across the range. The power delivery is very smooth. It revs very, very quickly (especially considering its capacity). It sounds great, and it seems to be the most robust part of the whole car - they don't break or even need any serious maintenance. It has all the strengths of normal aspiration, but gives performance that you would never need to better with forced induction.
There is a video of an interview with Mika Hakkinen, who talks about how, in a race car, "you never have enough power". Then asked to comment on the F1, he makes clear that as a road car it "definitely has enough power". Enough power for Mika is enough for me.
In reply to a question from the head service man at McLaren, Paul Rosche (BMW Motorsport chief engine designer) said that the engine would require a major service no more frequently than once every 250,000 kms, if that. During testing, BMW subjected the F1's engine to running abuse over a period that was 4 times as long as their normal testing regime; the engine held up perfectly.
All together, it's certainly the best road car engine that I have ever driven, and you'll hear many people with almost encyclopaedic experience of driving "supercars" who will tell you the same thing.
To put it differently, I'e never heard anyone who's driven an F1 say that he'd experienced a better engine.
There is a video of an interview with Mika Hakkinen, who talks about how, in a race car, "you never have enough power". Then asked to comment on the F1, he makes clear that as a road car it "definitely has enough power". Enough power for Mika is enough for me.
In reply to a question from the head service man at McLaren, Paul Rosche (BMW Motorsport chief engine designer) said that the engine would require a major service no more frequently than once every 250,000 kms, if that. During testing, BMW subjected the F1's engine to running abuse over a period that was 4 times as long as their normal testing regime; the engine held up perfectly.
All together, it's certainly the best road car engine that I have ever driven, and you'll hear many people with almost encyclopaedic experience of driving "supercars" who will tell you the same thing.
To put it differently, I'e never heard anyone who's driven an F1 say that he'd experienced a better engine.
Makes you think: why BMW don't supply engines to new supercars . . .
What a great thread. I am a huge fan of the F1, I remember reading the first reviews of it, I think it was in Autocar and Motor and being blown away by it all. I still have a copy of "driving ambition" on my bookshelf!
I can't really put my finger on why the car still captivates me so much. Part of it is the look for sure. Even when it was new you could tell that the styling wouldn't date rapidly.
I think it is probably more the assertion that the car was a ground-up study into how to build the best (not necessarily the fastest etc) drivers car ever.
And there is an element of the British underdog story, the car being built by a bunch of enthusiastic petrol heads under the vision of one man rather than by some faceless megacorp. I know the car wasn't built by men in oily coverals in a lockup, but there was something of that about it. I don't think I'd have been as big a fan of the Ford F1 for example.
It's hard to put my finger on, which is probably a good thing!
I have one question though Flemke, if you would be so kind. I remember reading/hearing not sure where Gordon Murray saying something along the lines of he wanted the car to really last, so if someone found one covered up by a tarp in an old hay shed in 50 years time, it wouldn't have rotted away and could be got going again. Sounds like the engines are pretty durable, but do you think he managed this? It would be nice to think of these cars really lasting.
Cheers,
Tom.
I can't really put my finger on why the car still captivates me so much. Part of it is the look for sure. Even when it was new you could tell that the styling wouldn't date rapidly.
I think it is probably more the assertion that the car was a ground-up study into how to build the best (not necessarily the fastest etc) drivers car ever.
And there is an element of the British underdog story, the car being built by a bunch of enthusiastic petrol heads under the vision of one man rather than by some faceless megacorp. I know the car wasn't built by men in oily coverals in a lockup, but there was something of that about it. I don't think I'd have been as big a fan of the Ford F1 for example.
It's hard to put my finger on, which is probably a good thing!
I have one question though Flemke, if you would be so kind. I remember reading/hearing not sure where Gordon Murray saying something along the lines of he wanted the car to really last, so if someone found one covered up by a tarp in an old hay shed in 50 years time, it wouldn't have rotted away and could be got going again. Sounds like the engines are pretty durable, but do you think he managed this? It would be nice to think of these cars really lasting.
Cheers,
Tom.
_03.jpg)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff