Discussion
dinkel said:
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 . . .
I thought they did? Does the Ascari use one? And the Morgan Aero 8?
ferrisbueller said:
dinkel said:
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 . . .
I thought they did? Does the Ascari use one? And the Morgan Aero 8?
They're not really technically BMW developed customer engines...
The Aero 8 engine is just a standard 4.4l V8 from the 645Ci etc.
and the Ascari engine is just a modified E39 M5 engine.
Not compared to the F1 engine are they anything special, which was entirely developed for the F1 and with (i assume) no BMW plans to put the engine in any other car, im sure their expereince with the M1 scared them off making any BMW supercar!
Edited by LukeBird on Thursday 26th April 18:18
flemke said:
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.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8HEay2qBjo
that is about 3 minutes 20 ish and shortly after you hear Mika saying "you can hear the TURBO whistling"
R_U_LOCAL said:
How much truth is there in the rumour I heard that the F1 engine is effectively 2 M3 engines developed into a V12.
I'm not particularly bothered if it's not true, but it would be nice to tell people my car has half an F1 engine!
I'm not particularly bothered if it's not true, but it would be nice to tell people my car has half an F1 engine!
As the contemporary M3 had a four cylinder engine, it would have taken three for the requisite number of cylinders. I would be guessing here, but it would seems to me to be more likely that the heads may have evolved from the h
those in the then six cylinder M5.
I could be very wrong though.
Edited by hammerwerfer on Thursday 26th April 20:41
hammerwerfer said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
How much truth is there in the rumour I heard that the F1 engine is effectively 2 M3 engines developed into a V12.
I'm not particularly bothered if it's not true, but it would be nice to tell people my car has half an F1 engine!
I'm not particularly bothered if it's not true, but it would be nice to tell people my car has half an F1 engine!
As the contemporary M3 had a four cylinder engine, it would have taken for the requisite number of cylinders. I would be guessing here, but it would seems to me to be more likely that the heads may have evolved from the h
those in the then six cylinder M5.
I could be very wrong though.
The M3 in production when the F1 was developed was the e36, not the e30.
R_U_LOCAL said:
hammerwerfer said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
How much truth is there in the rumour I heard that the F1 engine is effectively 2 M3 engines developed into a V12.
I'm not particularly bothered if it's not true, but it would be nice to tell people my car has half an F1 engine!
I'm not particularly bothered if it's not true, but it would be nice to tell people my car has half an F1 engine!
As the contemporary M3 had a four cylinder engine, it would have taken for the requisite number of cylinders. I would be guessing here, but it would seems to me to be more likely that the heads may have evolved from the h
those in the then six cylinder M5.
I could be very wrong though.
The M3 in production when the F1 was developed was the e36, not the e30.
Correct. But there's no truth in the rumour.
I think Flemke may even have answered this earlier in the thread.
ferrisbueller said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
hammerwerfer said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
How much truth is there in the rumour I heard that the F1 engine is effectively 2 M3 engines developed into a V12.
I'm not particularly bothered if it's not true, but it would be nice to tell people my car has half an F1 engine!
I'm not particularly bothered if it's not true, but it would be nice to tell people my car has half an F1 engine!
As the contemporary M3 had a four cylinder engine, it would have taken for the requisite number of cylinders. I would be guessing here, but it would seems to me to be more likely that the heads may have evolved from the h
those in the then six cylinder M5.
I could be very wrong though.
The M3 in production when the F1 was developed was the e36, not the e30.
Correct. But there's no truth in the rumour.
I think Flemke may even have answered this earlier in the thread.
Thanks.
*Goes off to look for something else common between the F1 and Reg's car*
Is it true, then, that the reflective coating on the mirrors comes from the same supplier?
*Clutching at straws*
hammerwerfer said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
The M3 in production when the F1 was developed was the e36, not the e30.
In 1991 the E30 M3, in its last and best iteration, the Sport Evolution, was produced.
I think the E36 M3 cam along three years later or so.
The e36 M3 was produced from 1992 to 1999 and the F1, I believe, was produced from 1994 to 1998.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=66&t=249213
There
The cylinder heads are similar to the E36 M3 engine- in terms of port flows, bore centres and combustion chamber shape/valve angles. I have a catalogue from Dellorto who were involved in the individual port throttles of the M3 and F1 engine and they, if not the same size are interchangeable as the stud spacing is the same also.
The cam profiles are different and the Mac F1 was targeted to be more peaky (presumably as the capacity allows it)- especially relative to the S50 B32 engine with its peak torque at 3250 rpm
There
The cylinder heads are similar to the E36 M3 engine- in terms of port flows, bore centres and combustion chamber shape/valve angles. I have a catalogue from Dellorto who were involved in the individual port throttles of the M3 and F1 engine and they, if not the same size are interchangeable as the stud spacing is the same also.
The cam profiles are different and the Mac F1 was targeted to be more peaky (presumably as the capacity allows it)- especially relative to the S50 B32 engine with its peak torque at 3250 rpm
I did suggest a little while ago that the F1 engine was developed from a racing engine they had not been continued with but Flemke retorted that it was a bespoke engine.
I don't know who would be prepared to argue, I certainly don't want to be stuck down by lightening.
Mabe he'll comment when he gets back from the 'ring.
I don't know who would be prepared to argue, I certainly don't want to be stuck down by lightening.
Mabe he'll comment when he gets back from the 'ring.
RobDickinson said:
From Wiki the F1 engine was a development of the M70 v12 used in the 7 and 8 serieses of the laet 80's/early 90's.
Whilst Wikipedia is fun and all, I wouldn't ever count on it to tell me something accurately,
As has been said a few times in this thread, and as you'll find if you read Driving Ambition, the F1's V12 has very very very little in common with the 5 l V12 as found in the 750 and 850, other than they're both V12s made by BMW.
flemke said:
MJK 24 said:
Flemke,
do you think that the F1 represents value for money considering the advances in performance other manufacturers have made since 1992? Or does the value come from the rarity and the likelihood that we'll unfortunately never see it's like again?
Also, would it be rude to ask you Nationality? We know you're quite private so feel free to overlook this question!
Cheers,
Mark
do you think that the F1 represents value for money considering the advances in performance other manufacturers have made since 1992? Or does the value come from the rarity and the likelihood that we'll unfortunately never see it's like again?
Also, would it be rude to ask you Nationality? We know you're quite private so feel free to overlook this question!
Cheers,
Mark
Mark,
By "value for money", I assume that you mean whether, if it were made today, it would be worth its current market value relative to the prices of other cars in current production.
Some things about the car are outdated, the brakes in particular. Having said that, I'm not sure what Murray would do about the fact that a modern carbon/ceramic composite system requires a servo; he was opposed to servos in principle.
Another anachronism are the tyres, although they are easy enough to bring up to current standards.
A third element would be the electronics, ranging from the lambda sensors to the relays. Today's engineers could bring to the party incomparably better computing and self-analytical power.
When we get in the question of numbers, if Ferrari had thought that they could sell 2,000 Enzos for 90% of what they got for the 400 that they actually built, I have no doubt that they would have made the greater number. Porsche would have done something similar with the CGT, producing 3000 rather than 1270 if they could have sold the 3,000 for a decent price.
If the world had five times as many Enzos as it has, selling for less than they actually did, would each car be less good than the actual cars are? No, each would probably be better, thanks to the additional development that would have transpired along the way. At the same time as each Enzo would be better than what we ended up with, each car would be worth less than whatever they go for today. Therefore the matter of which would be more valuable - the better machine or the rarer object - depends on your definition of "valuable".
Back to market prices and modern developments, a considerable part of the market value of these cars derives from their rarity.
The rarity is partly a function of build numbers but also, as you say, partly a function of uniqueness - how different it is relative to the universe of such things. As I said above, there are many reasons why McLaren would not make more F1s, and why it is very unlikely that another carmaker would make another car that much resembles the F1 but in a modernised form.
Although the F1 was designed about 15 years ago, it has a number of features that have yet to be employed in another road car. In the last 12-18 months, Murray has written a number of pieces comparing the Veyron and the F1, in which he has highlighted the ways in which, in his opinion, the F1 is still a technical exemplar.
I'm not sure how well that addresses your question, but if you have something more specific in mind, other PHers and I can take a shot at it.
As to nationality, I'm from Mars. For some strange reason, however, the women I know all seem to be from Venus.
That was great - many thanks. Must've taken you ten minutes or more!
Quick one... have you ever been on your travels and spotted an F1 on the road? Approx. 4 weeks ago I was travelling up the A1, about 8pm. An orange F1 with the 'long tail' bodywork overtook me sounding glorious. Last week, my dad rang me to tell me that a metallic red/maroon car had overtaken him on the (I think) M40.
In Autumn 1994 I was very fortunate to gain entry to the garage at Silverstone running the Harrods car. I was even more fortunate still to perch myself on the off side sill for a photo opportunity!
From 1994 to a month ago, I can only recall seeing one other F1. A silver car that was parked up unattended at Donnington.
Mark
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff