Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
thegreenhell said:
flemke said:
There is not a single set of "correct" proportions. The notion of a "Golden Section" is complete bull5hit. What proportions work is specific to the individual circumstances. Anyone who designs by the numbers is on a hiding to nothing, and it is indeed this fact that encourages challenging designs and discourages uniformity and conformity.
Malcolm Sayer didn't do too badly literally designing by numbers.Those cars have nice design elements in them, but then again so do so many other cars that were designed during that period.
The specific question, I think, is to what extent did he use arbitrary intellectual constructs, such as the Golden Rectangle, Golden Ratio, and Bezier curves.
This has got some beautiful curves in it. The best are the two wheel-arch lines (although, ironically, they are too small in relation to the size of the body overall).
Were those wheel arch lines, or other parts of the car, designed to conform to the Golden Ratio?
As for the Golden Rectangle itself:
that is simply an uninspired, limp, all-things-to-all-people relationship that contains nothing of visual interest. Furthermore the spiral, being simply a series of discontinuous radii tacked onto each other, is a good example of something that may be a intellectual curiosity whilst also being an aesthetic failure.
He was the first designer to use aerodynamics rather than just scribbles that looked nice, so I think he's owed a pretty big debt tbqh. Certainly there'd be no Gordon Murray without Sayer; http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/the-rest-of...
Dr JonboyG said:
He was the first designer to use aerodynamics rather than just scribbles that looked nice, so I think he's owed a pretty big debt tbqh. Certainly there'd be no Gordon Murray without Sayer; http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/the-rest-of...
Cheers for the link.I think whoever wrote it, however, was being a bit optimistic in suggesting that Sayer was the first to apply aerodynamic principles to motorcar design.
This photo of Bernd Rosemeyer was taken in 1938:
flemke said:
Cheers for the link.
I think whoever wrote it, however, was being a bit optimistic in suggesting that Sayer was the first to apply aerodynamic principles to motorcar design.
This photo of Bernd Rosemeyer was taken in 1938:
AFAIK (I'm the person who wrote it) Sayer was the first to actually use proper aero. Streamlining had been done before, but I don't believe it was done scientifically. And certainly not for cars that one could actually buy, as opposed to a handful of works-owned racing cars.I think whoever wrote it, however, was being a bit optimistic in suggesting that Sayer was the first to apply aerodynamic principles to motorcar design.
This photo of Bernd Rosemeyer was taken in 1938:
Dr JonboyG said:
flemke said:
Cheers for the link.
I think whoever wrote it, however, was being a bit optimistic in suggesting that Sayer was the first to apply aerodynamic principles to motorcar design.
This photo of Bernd Rosemeyer was taken in 1938:
AFAIK (I'm the person who wrote it) Sayer was the first to actually use proper aero. Streamlining had been done before, but I don't believe it was done scientifically. And certainly not for cars that one could actually buy, as opposed to a handful of works-owned racing cars.I think whoever wrote it, however, was being a bit optimistic in suggesting that Sayer was the first to apply aerodynamic principles to motorcar design.
This photo of Bernd Rosemeyer was taken in 1938:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "proper aero". Wouldn't the nose of the E-Type, for example, generate a lot of lift?
E65Ross said:
Flemke - I'm not sure whether this has been asked before but what is the gearing like on the McLaren F1, and roughly, how does it compare to the P1?
Eg 1st may redline at 50mph, 2nd to 90mph and so on? Obviously, the P1 squeezes another ratio in there.
Many thanks
Ross
Gearing on F1 is pretty long. I think Vmax in 1st is 65, in 2nd is 90 or 95. It pulls well in 5th.Eg 1st may redline at 50mph, 2nd to 90mph and so on? Obviously, the P1 squeezes another ratio in there.
Many thanks
Ross
In the P1 you (at least I) aren't really thinking about which gear you are in, because you do not need to be aware of what your next gear-change movement will be. It's just up and down the 'box. Each gear in P1 is def shorter than in F1 (after final drive is taken into account; I cannot be bothered to look up relative final drives of each), which accounts for both P1's extra gear and also its lower top speed.
flemke said:
Okay, cool, I presumed that you were including streamlining as a part of aerodynamics.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "proper aero". Wouldn't the nose of the E-Type, for example, generate a lot of lift?
By proper I meant mathematical; Sayer allegedly learned how to model complex 3D curves, but it's possible that's bunk. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "proper aero". Wouldn't the nose of the E-Type, for example, generate a lot of lift?
flemke said:
Gearing on F1 is pretty long. I think Vmax in 1st is 65, in 2nd is 90 or 95. It pulls well in 5th.
In the P1 you (at least I) aren't really thinking about which gear you are in, because you do not need to be aware of what your next gear-change movement will be. It's just up and down the 'box. Each gear in P1 is def shorter than in F1 (after final drive is taken into account; I cannot be bothered to look up relative final drives of each), which accounts for both P1's extra gear and also its lower top speed.
Thanks Flemke In the P1 you (at least I) aren't really thinking about which gear you are in, because you do not need to be aware of what your next gear-change movement will be. It's just up and down the 'box. Each gear in P1 is def shorter than in F1 (after final drive is taken into account; I cannot be bothered to look up relative final drives of each), which accounts for both P1's extra gear and also its lower top speed.
Dr JonboyG said:
flemke said:
Okay, cool, I presumed that you were including streamlining as a part of aerodynamics.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "proper aero". Wouldn't the nose of the E-Type, for example, generate a lot of lift?
By proper I meant mathematical; Sayer allegedly learned how to model complex 3D curves, but it's possible that's bunk. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "proper aero". Wouldn't the nose of the E-Type, for example, generate a lot of lift?
If you have not seen it already, I think you will find this discussion interesting:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/186592-bbc-r4-we...
flemke said:
Dr J,
If you have not seen it already, I think you will find this discussion interesting:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/186592-bbc-r4-we...
Thanks! If you have not seen it already, I think you will find this discussion interesting:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/186592-bbc-r4-we...
slinky said:
Note the disclaimer!! Purely theoretical based on tyre size, gear ratio, final drive and redline...
Is that saying 82mph in first gear? I would question that as I'm sure I read somewhere that Gordon Murray had to compromise on having a longer 1st gear in order to hit 60mph without a gear change. I would seem unlikely that he would have agreed to let it hit 82.flemke said:
Dr J,
If you have not seen it already, I think you will find this discussion interesting:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/186592-bbc-r4-we...
So, after reading that, and particularly Newey's comments, I don't think I'd disagree. But the important thing to take way is not that Sayer was immediately correct in what he did, but that he appeared to be the first (or at least the first to be recognized) to try and apply physics and maths to the problem of car design; before him it was just "this looks good, hopefully it works." Sayer started the trend of applying science to it. He might not have been the best, but he did start the trend, and that's something we've all benefited from.If you have not seen it already, I think you will find this discussion interesting:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/186592-bbc-r4-we...
And wrt to reducing drag vs increasing downforce, sure, Sayer got the balance wrong, but he wasn't alone there, as any history of the Porsche 917 would confirm. Piech, after all, had a militant focus on reducing drag for the 917, the result of which were terrifying and lethal until John Wyer decided to break out the tin snips.
Edited by Dr JonboyG on Wednesday 26th November 04:35
slinky said:
flemke said:
Gearing on F1 is pretty long. I think Vmax in 1st is 65, in 2nd is 90 or 95. It pulls well in 5th.
1. 66 mph
2. 98 mph
3. 125 mph
4. 154 mph
5. 185 mph
6. 231 mph
For the max speed run at Ehra, Mclaren removed the rev limiter for top gear to allow it to run to approx 7800 rpm.
I think I read something a few pages back about how a P1 had been painted in a TVR style flip paint, and how it was deemed a 'poor choice' by flemke. At the time I read that and saw the small picture and disagreed... I thought it looked great. Until, that is, these pictures emerged on another forum. I guess the wheels don't help matters but... wow... it really makes the car look *completely* wrong in my humble opinion!
http://imgur.com/a/c9DW3
http://imgur.com/a/c9DW3
Edited by Chicane-UK on Wednesday 26th November 09:17
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff