[flemke]

1 said:

flemke said:

I'm curious -what do you mean by "contradiction"?

You mention certain features are a nod to the teams racing heritage and then slap a ridiculous squiggle on the bonnet.

IMO its either or, either you respect its heritage and keep it original, or do as you please. If you do as you please and just create something you like then its a little disingenuous to start telling people you couldn't possible change the wheel nuts because it would "contradict its pragmatic origin".

To my eye it looks like you've simply had to much time to consider things and have come up with a series of design elements that simply don't gel. But each to their own, great to see someone enjoying such a fantastic car.

My point there was that you could keep the wheel nuts in their original colour, which never looked particularly good, and was chosen in order to match the brake ecalipers with which my car, thank goodness, is no longer lumbered.
Or, you could change that colour. You could make that colour utilitarian, or you could make it decorative. It so happened, however, that there was a colour combination that was utilitarian and, nonetheless, decorative. It was not essential that the purpose of the utilitarian colouring be maintained on a road car, but it wouldn't hurt if it was maintained on a road car.
To go to red on both sides would be purely decorative. That is to say, 4 red wheel nuts would look good, but they would seem silly conceptually.
It would make no sense to have the entire car purely "utilitarian", in the racing sense, for the obvious reason that it is not a racing car.
I'm not going to keep the car in its original, as-it-left-the-factory state, because there are too many small things about its original state that I think can be improved, without compromising in the least the integrity of the original.

[flemke]

35secToNuvolari said:

From the pics, it doesn't seem like the white line tapers much? True?

Edit: Just saw the vid. I see the white line tapers some.

The color is wonderful. I think the dark wheels work better with the darker color. For some reason a dark colored F1 with black wheels reminds me of those old black leather boxing shoes. Both have that beautiful tapered nose, are dark, sporting, light weight, and slightly menacing.

When I saw the interior, I thought you were going for something like this:



The light blue might be too grey for your tastes, though.

Thanks for taking the time to do the pics and video. It's a privilege to see your project.

That washed-out blue might work, but it would depend on the materials chosen, as well as on their layout.

I think the fundamental problem with the blue material that I used was that it lacks body and visual depth. It functions as a set of weak-kneed, characterless rectangles.

[Rollcage]

I was wondering if the accident repairs meant having to repair any of the things you have improved on your car, and if so what McLaren's approach to this was - as in "we'll put it back to standard, but not how you had it"?

Or would they have been "happy" to return the car to the mechanical spec it was in when it was involved in the accident?

[flemke]

Vmaxx Nut said:

Flemke a truly stunning car now its back to full health love all the details i wanted to ask how many changes have you made on the cabin from how GM left it ?

I can't recall know. A while back (few years ago), I listed all the interior changes that I coudl think of.
Binnacle surround carbon, plates underneath the horizontal controls/gearstick now black anodised, same for little kidney panels behind light switch, etc on binnacle, steering wheel, gear knob, both pairs of door pulls, passenger seat padding, carpets, driver's safety harness, trimmed panels directly behind driver's seat gone, main beam and horn paddles. Those are what come to mind atm.

[flemke]

dinkel said:

Blues that work on a specific car, IMO:

Ecurie Ecosse blue:

1958 Tojeiro-Jaguar Sports Racer

Fcar blue:
http://aussieexotics.com/drivers/displayimage-1278...
599


365 GTB


330 GTC


250 GTO

Of the 4, the bottom 3 all benefit greatly because the basic car has chrome or aluminium buts on it elsewhere.
The racing car at top is the least successful, visuallly. The problem in part is thos stupid silver wheels. The other part (of whichI can see) is the greenness of the blue. It's too much of a stick-in-the-back-of-your throat colour.

[flemke]

GFWilliams said:

Guyr said:

flemke said:

I've nothing against the photos you recommend, but they're artworks that happen to have cars as a focal point. They're not about the cars.
IMO, the best photography for this purpose is the clinical, "mug-shot" kind - utterly neutral setting, no tricks of the light, just showing us what's there.

Thats a fair viewpoint.

I personally like both ends of the spectrum, in that I have some framed technical drawings of Porsche engines for example, as well as picture/posters of my cars that are simple accurate photos from trackdays etc. That said I also like motor artworks, in particular I am a fan of Tim Layzell and have some of his originals.

I try and shoot both types of photography (for example I've been shooting at Goodwood all weekend which I have no control over anything) but much prefer photography as an art form. Can respect your opinion though Flemke

Was having a look at some of Tim's work today at the Revival. He's a very very very talented man!!

That's dine, no proba.
My point was that almost all of the automotive photography of yours that I saw were things that were primarily abstractions, with a car thrown in to give the picture a bit of impact.
If the car is incidental, and yet it helps to yield strong works of art, I have no objection to that. It' s just that I myself would not wish my car to be used in that way - as a prop.

Cheers.

[flemke]

Rollcage said:

I was wondering if the accident repairs meant having to repair any of the things you have improved on your car, and if so what McLaren's approach to this was - as in "we'll put it back to standard, but not how you had it"?

Or would they have been "happy" to return the car to the mechanical spec it was in when it was involved in the accident?

Good question; will try to reply tom'w.

Cheers.

[Rollcage]

[GFWilliams]

flemke said:

That's dine, no proba.
My point was that almost all of the automotive photography of yours that I saw were things that were primarily abstractions, with a car thrown in to give the picture a bit of impact.
If the car is incidental, and yet it helps to yield strong works of art, I have no objection to that. It' s just that I myself would not wish my car to be used in that way - as a prop.

Cheers.

I'd say as a prop is a bit harsh. As a work of art (which I believe most supercars are) which is a focal piece (as opposed to 'thrown in') is more the way I see it

Each to their own opinion though

[flemke]

flemke said:

Rollcage said:

I was wondering if the accident repairs meant having to repair any of the things you have improved on your car, and if so what McLaren's approach to this was - as in "we'll put it back to standard, but not how you had it"?

Or would they have been "happy" to return the car to the mechanical spec it was in when it was involved in the accident?

Good question; will try to reply tom'w.

Cheers.

Repairs involved nothing that was not factory-supplied. There is no way today that they would make up for me parts that I'd had designed elsewhere, or that departed from the original type-approval. In that context, and ironically, the things that I've done...how to put this diplomatically...have not made the car less safe than it was as standard. I've gone over in detail with the underwriters everything that I've done, and they're fine with it.
In general, in last few years the factory have been much more open-minded about at least tolerating what I was doing. I think also, after I pointed it out to them, they thought about EU law, and what it would and would not oblige them to do as regards making OEM parts available to me. Furthermore, getting into the road car business "properly" has engendered a much more customer-accommodating mentality down there. They were always super polite and considerate, but only on their terms. That has changed a lot.

[flemke]

GFWilliams said:

flemke said:

That's dine, no proba.
My point was that almost all of the automotive photography of yours that I saw were things that were primarily abstractions, with a car thrown in to give the picture a bit of impact.
If the car is incidental, and yet it helps to yield strong works of art, I have no objection to that. It' s just that I myself would not wish my car to be used in that way - as a prop.

Cheers.

I'd say as a prop is a bit harsh. As a work of art (which I believe most supercars are) which is a focal piece (as opposed to 'thrown in') is more the way I see it

Each to their own opinion though

Interesting....

First, sorry if my language was harsh. I've been dealing with some pretty heavy 5hit, and it's affected my temper lately.

The first thing that strikes me about the images that I see on your site, and the examples on your PH profile, is how specific the car colour choice is. I'm not saying that the choice in a given image is the only one that would work, but in many of them the colour of the car is integral to the image. To my way of thinking, that already begins to separate the car per se from the purpose of the image. Not a bad thing, but a thing.

The car colour here is crucial to the image:


Likewise:

In this one, you could have had a works van in that orange, and you'd have >90% of what's there with the GT3. To my mind, that is a compliment to you: it's not about the car, it's about the artist's vision.


This one as well:

This is about white-red-green-grey mist. The sports car bit is secondary.

This one is quite nice:

but it's got little to do with, I guess it's a 458. It's extreme contours painted in gloss black against dirt road and a verdant landscape, with a slice of pale sky. The car itself? The glossy black could almost have been that plastic agricultural sheeting covering a pile of hay.

In my previous post, I was not looking to criticise what you do. My point was just that I favour the utilitarian look when it comes to photographs of cars.

Cheers.

[El Guapo]

flemke said:

To you and others who have commented on the swirl marks in the original:

The detailer took those images under a lighting system that was specifically designed to show up scratches/swirl marks. He told me that this extent of revelation was typical amongst the better-quality paint jobs that are delivered to him for final finishing.
In normal light, I can assure you that the paint looked fine - not super-polished and flawless the way that it is now, but fine and fit-for-purpose.

I appreciate that the pictures accentuate the swirl marks and that the paint looks very good after being detailed, but the fact remains that somebody has caused minor damage during the polishing process. I would shrug this off following a cheap respray on an old Fiesta but if I had spent a considerable sum of money having a rare and valuable car repainted to the highest possible standard I would have some questions for the paint shop manager.

[hurstg01]

Surely the cost of the repair to the paintwork has been far outweighed by the detailers marketing coup from having Flemke's F1 changed from it's post-painted state to what it is now; everyone who loves Mclaren's / detailing / this thread is talking about it, and are seeing just how good his workmanship is. Surely an advert in a car magazine isn't worth this kind of exposure

[flemke]

hurstg01 said:

Surely the cost of the repair to the paintwork has been far outweighed by the detailers marketing coup from having Flemke's F1 changed from it's post-painted state to what it is now; everyone who loves Mclaren's / detailing / this thread is talking about it, and are seeing just how good his workmanship is. Surely an advert in a car magazine isn't worth this kind of exposure

There was not really any additional cost entailed in the detailing. The purpose of the job was always to apply a final protective layer, wax or otherwise, over the paint itself. I did not realise that there would be a lot of polishing done prior to that application.
All I can say is that the man who did the polishing, etc., Paul, told me afterwards that the extent of the swirl marks was not unusual for a high-quality respray.

[Nurburgsingh]

You'd think that the paint shop would sort out a detail when they prep proper exotic cars.

I know that here is a curing time after a paint job but you know what I mean...

[anniesdad]

Nurburgsingh said:

You'd think that the paint shop would sort out a detail when they prep proper exotic cars.

I know that here is a curing time after a paint job but you know what I mean...

They're not detailers though, so a quick polish is what the car gets regardless of the make/model of the car itself. Insurers will not normally pay for detailing either as having a detail carried out would mean betterment (cars aren't detailed straight out of the factory) and insurers aren't in the business of putting you in a better position than you were in before an accident...

If a bodyshop were to sub-contract to a detailer to carry out a detail post paint, you can be sure that you would not get a seperate invoice for the detail, the cost would be included within the repairers invoice with an amount charged on top for the bodyshop's admin. So it probably works out more cost effective to carry out your own detail post paint.

[Joe911]

anniesdad said:

They're not detailers though, so a quick polish is what the car gets regardless of the make/model of the car itself. Insurers will not normally pay for detailing either as having a detail carried out would mean betterment (cars aren't detailed straight out of the factory) and insurers aren't in the business of putting you in a better position than you were in before an accident...

If a bodyshop were to sub-contract to a detailer to carry out a detail post paint, you can be sure that you would not get a seperate invoice for the detail, the cost would be included within the repairers invoice with an amount charged on top for the bodyshop's admin. So it probably works out more cost effective to carry out your own detail post paint.

What was done was not just the insurance claim - so of course they are not paying the full bill anyway.

The thing that's not right here though is that McL do not charge regular body-shop rates. The number they charge for a respray is eye watering - it's just crazy. So, given that they are charging an insane price - would it not be a right and proper that they do a better job than anyone else and include a detail in with the price? (just like my car getting a 'free' wash included in the servicing price)

Though here the car was not just detailed, but had a special paint treatment - and I can see why McL would not have wanted to do that bit.

When McL fit new tyres, for example, they charge a fortune - but they are kind enough to take the car to a test track and scrub them in for you (like you wouldn't prefer to do it yourself).

Edited by Joe911 on Monday 19th September 10:32

[just me]

I think they should absolutely throw in a free detail with the Brazilian carnauba treatment. Along with the best protective nano-metallic-anti-oxidation-electrically-charged-like-90-coats-of-lacquer-whatever coating available should be included.

[Joe911]

just me said:

I think they should absolutely throw in a free detail with the Brazilian carnauba treatment. Along with the best protective nano-metallic-anti-oxidation-electrically-charged-like-90-coats-of-lacquer-whatever coating available should be included.

Free Brazilian!

[anniesdad]

Joe911 said:

What was done was not just the insurance claim - so of course they are not paying the full bill anyway.

The thing that's not right here though is that McL do not charge regular body-shop rates. The number they charge for a respray is eye watering - it's just crazy. So, given that they are charging an insane price - would it not be a right and proper that they do a better job than anyone else and include a detail in with the price? (just like my car getting a 'free' wash included in the servicing price)

Though here the car was not just detailed, but had a special paint treatment - and I can see why McL would not have wanted to do that bit.

When McL fit new tyres, for example, they charge a fortune - but they are kind enough to take the car to a test track and scrub them in for you (like you wouldn't prefer to do it yourself).

Edited by Joe911 on Monday 19th September 10:32

I hear you, I really do, I agree they should do a better job if they are charging more, but a 4 day detail (in the detailing thread it mentions this) is going to cost what, I'm guessing £1000? I think McL know that the owners can probably comfortably afford that so are unlikely to offer this as a complimentary service...

I don't know how hard it is to respray an F1, whether the car is stripped to bare shell and rebuilt. What I remember reading is that a CGT costs c.£8k for a respray and is quite simple to do in that most of the painted parts can be unbolted from the chassis/tub.

I'm guessing an F1 respray costs, this kind of money, maybe £10K?