RE: McLaren MP4-12C, Now With Added 'Phwoarr'
Discussion
PhilJames said:
Evo has always been a car porno mag, all pictures no content, I don't know anyone who reads that crap, all the mags are mostly full of themselves and full of inaccuracies, I bet they actually think they are part of the automotive industry. 
At least Top gear know they are a bunch of bafoons and don't take themselves seriously, that's just car themed entertainment, although last week was a good car show.
Evo = Nice photography
TG = Funny + nice film work
I'm glad you said this, i have never really looked at it this way till now and you have hit the nail on the head. I salute youAt least Top gear know they are a bunch of bafoons and don't take themselves seriously, that's just car themed entertainment, although last week was a good car show.
Evo = Nice photography
TG = Funny + nice film work
I have to say that if the Mecca is quicker than the Horses Bottom then so what. If anyone buys the geek mobile because of that then what is in the ownership experience for them. Simillarily if the horse head car is purchased because it lapped some circuit quicker than the super-Enzo-ego mobile then what depth of pleasure is going to be achieved by this bozo.
Anyone who has tried something like the Lotus 11 or simillar (or a Westie 11 for the more impecunious like me) will notice that the fifties technology which ensures that all sorts of driving angles/techniques are on tap at speeds that are commonly available and are huge fun. I am not saying that classics are better, just asking what is the point of either cars, beyond the ego trip of owning the bl**dy things. Even in Ferrari terms a bad car like the Testarossa which was so flawed with its engine sitting precariously on its gearbox that driving the thing becams akin to taming a wild horse, and in a strange way became such a fun machine to master. Ok, dodgy styling, but negotiating a roundabout at 80mph with the back providing the entertainment WAS spine tingling stuff on an early morning run. Its modern conterparts would have to be driven at such massive speed the consequences of getting it wrong have been experienced by a few with catastrophic results.
Buying such a car should however be so much more than the driving. With these cars where is the passion, the art and the sheer JOY that such a depth of feeling can give to the experience of ownership? They seem little more than a computer geeks wet dream, as much use as joyless sex is to love. Owning a great car should be in itself experienced as a form of desire.
Desire is the force in life that exists for its own sake; it drives passion and gives the energy to experience the moment in all its multifaceted depth of feeling, it is our very life blood.
Ian
Anyone who has tried something like the Lotus 11 or simillar (or a Westie 11 for the more impecunious like me) will notice that the fifties technology which ensures that all sorts of driving angles/techniques are on tap at speeds that are commonly available and are huge fun. I am not saying that classics are better, just asking what is the point of either cars, beyond the ego trip of owning the bl**dy things. Even in Ferrari terms a bad car like the Testarossa which was so flawed with its engine sitting precariously on its gearbox that driving the thing becams akin to taming a wild horse, and in a strange way became such a fun machine to master. Ok, dodgy styling, but negotiating a roundabout at 80mph with the back providing the entertainment WAS spine tingling stuff on an early morning run. Its modern conterparts would have to be driven at such massive speed the consequences of getting it wrong have been experienced by a few with catastrophic results.
Buying such a car should however be so much more than the driving. With these cars where is the passion, the art and the sheer JOY that such a depth of feeling can give to the experience of ownership? They seem little more than a computer geeks wet dream, as much use as joyless sex is to love. Owning a great car should be in itself experienced as a form of desire.
Desire is the force in life that exists for its own sake; it drives passion and gives the energy to experience the moment in all its multifaceted depth of feeling, it is our very life blood.
Ian
Turbo Harry said:
That's what these people think. They'd find the truth somewhat different if they weren't so lazy. But now thanks to James' efforts, it's a mantra that will be parroted by the ignorant.
Interesting - so, if they're wrong about why so many cars ride so badly, what would you say is the real reason?hornetrider said:
This month's Evo has a Metcalfe penned article taking credit for it
Have to say I admire McL for responding in the way they have - can't imagine early buyers will be left behind either. I would imagine there will be updates available through the dealer network.
In the same mag, there is a Pagani article. Haven't read it yet but I've noted in the pictures you have Harry and Horatio stood either side of the new Huayuauaraui fondling the air-brake flappy things.Have to say I admire McL for responding in the way they have - can't imagine early buyers will be left behind either. I would imagine there will be updates available through the dealer network.
No doubt Harry is giving him vital information on aerodynamics prior to going to market.
toppstuff said:
I have to say that EVO are not doing themselves any favours. Frankly, they come across as rather self-important and smug rather than independent champions of the performance car and driver.
And I must say that they singularly fail to "get" McLaren and its ethos. For me, this is the most disappointing thing of all.
There is room in the market ( one hopes ) for a performance car that is the antithesis of Ferrari.
I think McLaren is looking to fill that gap, providing a car with the daily usability of a 911 while setting new standards of performance and safety. In this respect, McLaren seem to have nailed it on the first attempt. It is very disappointing that the motoring press fails to recognise this.
Back to the car - The changes clearly amount to little more than a bit of tweaking. In a more sane world, changes like these may even have been implemented without a fanfare. Instead, EVO and their ilk have driven the narrative of the story for their own ends. In the desire to get a controversial cover headline, they have created a story and appointed themselves as the story teller and the hero.
Top Gear is often berated for its inaccuracy and for Clarkson's nonsense ( quite rightly , his take on the XKR S and GTR was inaccurate, inconsistent and complete rubbish) but it seems to me that EVO and the "proper" motoring journalists are not that different. Under the earnest analysis and supposed journalistic integrity, I think they are just as inconsistent.
Perhaps we should remember that they are journalists first and foremost. But when they make themselves part of the story , then the game is up. EVO has lost credibility in my opinion.
Absolutely spot on all counts - good post.And I must say that they singularly fail to "get" McLaren and its ethos. For me, this is the most disappointing thing of all.
There is room in the market ( one hopes ) for a performance car that is the antithesis of Ferrari.
I think McLaren is looking to fill that gap, providing a car with the daily usability of a 911 while setting new standards of performance and safety. In this respect, McLaren seem to have nailed it on the first attempt. It is very disappointing that the motoring press fails to recognise this.
Back to the car - The changes clearly amount to little more than a bit of tweaking. In a more sane world, changes like these may even have been implemented without a fanfare. Instead, EVO and their ilk have driven the narrative of the story for their own ends. In the desire to get a controversial cover headline, they have created a story and appointed themselves as the story teller and the hero.
Top Gear is often berated for its inaccuracy and for Clarkson's nonsense ( quite rightly , his take on the XKR S and GTR was inaccurate, inconsistent and complete rubbish) but it seems to me that EVO and the "proper" motoring journalists are not that different. Under the earnest analysis and supposed journalistic integrity, I think they are just as inconsistent.
Perhaps we should remember that they are journalists first and foremost. But when they make themselves part of the story , then the game is up. EVO has lost credibility in my opinion.
It is indeed an antithesis to Ferrari and this should be welcomed.
Oh yes its the antithesis all right.
Ferrari = beautifully styled Mclaren = bland as fook
Hell the Maclaren even makes the NSX look exciting. The Macca is a truely faceless car.
Sure it may be well made, faster etc etc but who cares when it looks and reportly drives the way it does. It seems clear from the road testers that you get out of the fezza buzzing over the "whole" experience where the macca is a wee bit clinical and lacking in certain areas.
I'd liken the macca to a drab looking bird that is great in the sack. By contrast the Ferrari is Latin beauty that ticks all the boxes.
I remember the very first pics of the mclaren and thinking it was crap then. The exhausts particularly offend looking way too big and ill proportioned on the rear.
Now this airbrake business. Sorry but I don't buy into this b
ks. Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"? No planes do though and lardy heavy fast cars like the veyron and mclaren slr & mp4 12c. Just an unnecessary gimmick. Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!
Ferrari = beautifully styled Mclaren = bland as fook
Hell the Maclaren even makes the NSX look exciting. The Macca is a truely faceless car.
Sure it may be well made, faster etc etc but who cares when it looks and reportly drives the way it does. It seems clear from the road testers that you get out of the fezza buzzing over the "whole" experience where the macca is a wee bit clinical and lacking in certain areas.
I'd liken the macca to a drab looking bird that is great in the sack. By contrast the Ferrari is Latin beauty that ticks all the boxes.
I remember the very first pics of the mclaren and thinking it was crap then. The exhausts particularly offend looking way too big and ill proportioned on the rear.
Now this airbrake business. Sorry but I don't buy into this b
ks. Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"? No planes do though and lardy heavy fast cars like the veyron and mclaren slr & mp4 12c. Just an unnecessary gimmick. Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!Edited by fuchsiasteve on Wednesday 20th July 07:51
Edited by fuchsiasteve on Wednesday 20th July 07:52
Murcielago_Boy said:
toppstuff said:
But the "loud , outlandish sideways supercar" thing is already covered by Ferrari and Lamborghini. For some people this is the "be all and end all of supercar ownership" as you put it. And its well covered.
Mclaren are taking their own path. And the press have effectively tried to benchmark them to the same old criteria and criticised them for not doing the same thing. The Mclaren IS different ( to a 458 for example) . But different does not equal second best.
The disappointing thing is that the press fail to understand this. When they go blathering on about passion and all that guff, while testing sideways on a track a car they did not spend their own money on, they are not speaking for a significant minority of potential buyers. There are people who want something different and EVO is not speaking for them, but instead falling for the usual supercar cliches - the very cliches that some people want to avoid.
Excellent post. Mclaren are taking their own path. And the press have effectively tried to benchmark them to the same old criteria and criticised them for not doing the same thing. The Mclaren IS different ( to a 458 for example) . But different does not equal second best.
The disappointing thing is that the press fail to understand this. When they go blathering on about passion and all that guff, while testing sideways on a track a car they did not spend their own money on, they are not speaking for a significant minority of potential buyers. There are people who want something different and EVO is not speaking for them, but instead falling for the usual supercar cliches - the very cliches that some people want to avoid.
fuchsiasteve said:
Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"?
I think you'll find the design of most racing cars is dictated more by regulatory requirements than efficacy. Plus, most racing cars already have a whacking great spoiler attached whilst air brakes tend to be fitted to road cars with more subtle aero, particularly under-floor aero.E21_Ross said:
i think it's one of the nicest interiors i've seen for a very long time. it's simple, and not complicated by 1 million buttons. the 458 interior is a complete mess in comparison
.jpg)
lovely and simple, just how it should be.
messy IMO:
I agree that on that photo the interior is nice; I just didn't like the shape around the main dial.lovely and simple, just how it should be.
messy IMO:
But, the Ferrari dashboard is incredibly messy indeed! What an untidy agglomeration of odd shapes!
I even prefer any BMW dash to the Ferrari's! Just the yellow of the main dial is fun ...on a Ferrari.
fuchsiasteve said:
Mclaren = bland as fook
Hell the Maclaren even makes the NSX look exciting. The Macca is a truely faceless car.
Sure it may be well made, faster etc etc but who cares when it looks the way it does.
Now this airbrake business. Just an unnecessary gimmick.
Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!
[/footnote]
[/footnote]
I agree on most posts, and even laughed about the SILLY TEA TRAY! I already don't like Porsches, because they look so bland, have completely disproportionned rear wings Hell the Maclaren even makes the NSX look exciting. The Macca is a truely faceless car.
Sure it may be well made, faster etc etc but who cares when it looks the way it does.
Now this airbrake business. Just an unnecessary gimmick.
Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!
[/footnote]
[/footnote]
(which prove that the car needs to be completely redesigned since ages; it's a bit as if one fitted a rear wing to a Cobra!)
and make a disagreeable noise.
And their TEA TRAYS, HA HA HA HA!
The McLaren is even so far better looking than ANY Porsche.
Plotloss said:
Yet despite all that it looks 10x more elegant than the car that everyone seems to be obsessed with comparing it to.
True that in dark red, and with its smooth shapes, it is more elegant than any of the recent Ferraris in bright yellow or bright red. Anyhow, I used to love most Ferraris, but now they are getting uglier and uglier each time.
I might dare to say that Ferraris now have the ugliest steering wheels on the market.
And at that price they don't even have... well-fitting bonnets!
And I will still add that the last time I was right next to a Ferrari (probably a 355), the sound of the engine was absolutely ridiculous: disagreeable, cheap, tinny, and everybody around me agreed! They aren't even sports cars anymore?
fuchsiasteve said:
Mclaren MP4-12C the car designed by sandles with socks engineers for sandles with socks engineers yawn!
No contest between the Ferrari 458 italia and the geek mobile from Woking. One has the curves, passion, noise and the other is just a naff copy without all the flair and a stupid panel that keeps popping up when you brake (WHY??? answers on a postcard geeks).
Can't believe they made it without thinking that it might need to make a great noise either? kind of sums it up.
Troll alert No contest between the Ferrari 458 italia and the geek mobile from Woking. One has the curves, passion, noise and the other is just a naff copy without all the flair and a stupid panel that keeps popping up when you brake (WHY??? answers on a postcard geeks).
Can't believe they made it without thinking that it might need to make a great noise either? kind of sums it up.
Ipelm said:
I have to say that if the Mecca is quicker than the Horses Bottom then so what. If anyone buys the geek mobile because of that then what is in the ownership experience for them. Simillarily if the horse head car is purchased because it lapped some circuit quicker than the super-Enzo-ego mobile then what depth of pleasure is going to be achieved by this bozo.
Anyone who has tried something like the Lotus 11 or simillar (or a Westie 11 for the more impecunious like me) will notice that the fifties technology which ensures that all sorts of driving angles/techniques are on tap at speeds that are commonly available and are huge fun. I am not saying that classics are better, just asking what is the point of either cars, beyond the ego trip of owning the bl**dy things. Even in Ferrari terms a bad car like the Testarossa which was so flawed with its engine sitting precariously on its gearbox that driving the thing becams akin to taming a wild horse, and in a strange way became such a fun machine to master. Ok, dodgy styling, but negotiating a roundabout at 80mph with the back providing the entertainment WAS spine tingling stuff on an early morning run. Its modern conterparts would have to be driven at such massive speed the consequences of getting it wrong have been experienced by a few with catastrophic results.
Buying such a car should however be so much more than the driving. With these cars where is the passion, the art and the sheer JOY that such a depth of feeling can give to the experience of ownership? They seem little more than a computer geeks wet dream, as much use as joyless sex is to love. Owning a great car should be in itself experienced as a form of desire.
Desire is the force in life that exists for its own sake; it drives passion and gives the energy to experience the moment in all its multifaceted depth of feeling, it is our very life blood.
Ian
I agree with every point you have made though I think joyless sex is probably still under-rated. Anyone who has tried something like the Lotus 11 or simillar (or a Westie 11 for the more impecunious like me) will notice that the fifties technology which ensures that all sorts of driving angles/techniques are on tap at speeds that are commonly available and are huge fun. I am not saying that classics are better, just asking what is the point of either cars, beyond the ego trip of owning the bl**dy things. Even in Ferrari terms a bad car like the Testarossa which was so flawed with its engine sitting precariously on its gearbox that driving the thing becams akin to taming a wild horse, and in a strange way became such a fun machine to master. Ok, dodgy styling, but negotiating a roundabout at 80mph with the back providing the entertainment WAS spine tingling stuff on an early morning run. Its modern conterparts would have to be driven at such massive speed the consequences of getting it wrong have been experienced by a few with catastrophic results.
Buying such a car should however be so much more than the driving. With these cars where is the passion, the art and the sheer JOY that such a depth of feeling can give to the experience of ownership? They seem little more than a computer geeks wet dream, as much use as joyless sex is to love. Owning a great car should be in itself experienced as a form of desire.
Desire is the force in life that exists for its own sake; it drives passion and gives the energy to experience the moment in all its multifaceted depth of feeling, it is our very life blood.
Ian
Even with my C5 Z06 and even with a modified Mustang, the limits of modern cars compared to their 80s counterparts makes having fun so much harder and at so much higher speed. Why, after a 405hp Corvette and a 460hp Mustang do i still find myself wistfully looking back at the grin elicited by a 250hp Corvette C4...
Grovsie26 said:
E21_Ross said:
911 turbo sounds very, very dull.
Still sounds boring and dull to me, not in the same league as the 458, which is half the problem, tats it's main rival.I agree the 911 turbo sounds crap, like all of the 911 range other than the made RS's.
A subject no-one has come up with yet is the... age of the driver.
When I was young, I had a frightfully noisy Mini.
The more recently a Cobra replica, with enormous and quite noisy exhaust pipes.
But now, I'm 65, not feeling old yet, but even so I just enjoy a good, powerful car, and do not need the noise anymore, just a deep purr!
Perhaps one doesn't want to attract attention anymore at a certain age... but still enjoy driving.
fuchsiasteve said:
Oh yes its the antithesis all right.
Ferrari = beautifully styled Mclaren = bland as fook
Hell the Maclaren even makes the NSX look exciting. The Macca is a truely faceless car.
Sure it may be well made, faster etc etc but who cares when it looks and reportly drives the way it does. It seems clear from the road testers that you get out of the fezza buzzing over the "whole" experience where the macca is a wee bit clinical and lacking in certain areas.
I'd liken the macca to a drab looking bird that is great in the sack. By contrast the Ferrari is Latin beauty that ticks all the boxes.
I remember the very first pics of the mclaren and thinking it was crap then. The exhausts particularly offend looking way too big and ill proportioned on the rear.
Now this airbrake business. Sorry but I don't buy into this bks. Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"? No planes do though and lardy heavy fast cars like the veyron and mclaren slr & mp4 12c. Just an unnecessary gimmick. Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!
if you were driving at 150+ mph and had to slam the anchors on, you wouldn't say the air brake was unnecessary. i think the mclaren looks good, and probably still will in 15 years time, whereas the 458 will probably date badly. it can't be that bad if they've sold 3 years production slots already. racing cars aren't allowed air brakes due to rules, not because they don't need them (plus they have massive rear wings). the MP4-12C is actually very light for a car of it's class. it's lighter than a 458, and only the stripped out, far less comfortable porsches, may be lighter, but it's only by a whisker.Ferrari = beautifully styled Mclaren = bland as fook
Hell the Maclaren even makes the NSX look exciting. The Macca is a truely faceless car.
Sure it may be well made, faster etc etc but who cares when it looks and reportly drives the way it does. It seems clear from the road testers that you get out of the fezza buzzing over the "whole" experience where the macca is a wee bit clinical and lacking in certain areas.
I'd liken the macca to a drab looking bird that is great in the sack. By contrast the Ferrari is Latin beauty that ticks all the boxes.
I remember the very first pics of the mclaren and thinking it was crap then. The exhausts particularly offend looking way too big and ill proportioned on the rear.
Now this airbrake business. Sorry but I don't buy into this b
ks. Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"? No planes do though and lardy heavy fast cars like the veyron and mclaren slr & mp4 12c. Just an unnecessary gimmick. Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!Edited by fuchsiasteve on Wednesday 20th July 07:51
Edited by fuchsiasteve on Wednesday 20th July 07:52
for a 600bhp, comfortable daily driver, 1350kgs or whatever it is, is very, very light considering the safety features of the car.
i think you're just a troll though to be honest. all of your points are based on opinion which you seem to take as fact. sorry you don't buy into proper engineering.
fuchsiasteve said:
Now this airbrake business. Sorry but I don't buy into this bks. Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"? No planes do though and lardy heavy fast cars like the veyron and mclaren slr & mp4 12c. Just an unnecessary gimmick. Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!
this is a truly stupid comment.ks. Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"? No planes do though and lardy heavy fast cars like the veyron and mclaren slr & mp4 12c. Just an unnecessary gimmick. Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!at high speeds an air brake will aid massively in slowing the car down... and it's relatively easy to implement and very effective. why wouldn't you put one on a car that can easily do 150 mph plus?
Use Psychology said:
this is a truly stupid comment.
at high speeds an air brake will aid massively in slowing the car down... and it's relatively easy to implement and very effective. why wouldn't you put one on a car that can easily do 150 mph plus?
You can also use it to control the centre of downforce as well, as an aid to stability. Both the McLaren F1 and the McLaren-Mercedes SLR had one and used it for that purpose (in addition to pure retardation), so it's not really a huge surprise that the McLaren MP4-12C has one too. at high speeds an air brake will aid massively in slowing the car down... and it's relatively easy to implement and very effective. why wouldn't you put one on a car that can easily do 150 mph plus?
Wow, what a thorny comments thread! My own thoughts go like this:
It's great to see that McLaren have responded to the criticisms that the car has attracted, but they had to. They themselves said the car would beat the oposition and it didn't. Any manufacturer wants to beat the rest, but rarely react when they fall short.
Like 99% of the people on here, I've not driven one and while I'd like to from a pure petrolhead perspective, I'm pretty sure it won't be for me. Like many posters on here, I feel that the way McLaren have approached the market, ignores what many drivers want: passion, excitement, flamboyance, engagement.... all the things that make owning a supercar a true experience.
If I had the money, I'd try one, but I doubt I'd buy one over the more viceral, cars out there. At 200K (don't forget the options), there's a lot of choice out there and the 12C doesn't look anywhere near exciting enough. It's a clean looking car, but it looks too bland (compared to just about all it's rivals) and is very similar in design to cars that have gone before it.
Technology in cars is a tricky area to balance too. For example, Brake Steer systems have been around for a while and are usually implemented where either a mechanical solution (LSD, et al) couldn't be found, or would be too labourious / costly to implement. Use of electrics is often the engineering "quick win", at the expense of driver feel.
I'm not a Ferrari fan, but from the cars I've been in (360, 430), I can't help feeling that they "get" petrolheads and cater for their desires better. The need to be part of the process, to work with the car for reward.
Hat's off to McLaren for making a car that can lap Dunsfold very, very quickly, but like the Nissan GTR, I can't help thinking it's a triumph of technology of driver skill / involvement.
None of this matter tho'. When I look at the car, look at the way it's been designed & engineered, look at McLaren's business model, I can't help thinking that, they don't care. Not in a bad way, just that they grabbed the headlines with some laptimes and really just want to sell a boat load of cars to people who have 200K and want a nice, fast car, but aren't bothered about the flamboyance, theatre and attention that supercars normally come with.
I think McLaren have a target audience some way off that of Ferrari, for example. Maybe they are trying to be the Clark Kent of the supercar world. Or maybe the volume selling 12C is meant to be the bread & butter, to pay for the real extravagant supercar, that's still in development and will make a Reventon look like Fiesta?
I'm with FuchsciaSteve, LuS1fer and evo magazine on this one. The car appears to dial out the insane streak that supercars have and appeal to many petrolheads. I want my fun car to be just that, fun. I want to feel that I was part of a great B-road romp, that the car "spoke" to me both through the noises it made and the feedback through the controls. I don't want to rely on computers and gadgets, to do the job for me. I don't want a car because of a lap time or a badge, I want a car because it gives me goosebumps and plugs right into my senses.
In short, I'm clearly not a McLaren target customer, I think many petrolheads aren't either and maybe that doesn't bother them one bit.
It's great to see that McLaren have responded to the criticisms that the car has attracted, but they had to. They themselves said the car would beat the oposition and it didn't. Any manufacturer wants to beat the rest, but rarely react when they fall short.
Like 99% of the people on here, I've not driven one and while I'd like to from a pure petrolhead perspective, I'm pretty sure it won't be for me. Like many posters on here, I feel that the way McLaren have approached the market, ignores what many drivers want: passion, excitement, flamboyance, engagement.... all the things that make owning a supercar a true experience.
If I had the money, I'd try one, but I doubt I'd buy one over the more viceral, cars out there. At 200K (don't forget the options), there's a lot of choice out there and the 12C doesn't look anywhere near exciting enough. It's a clean looking car, but it looks too bland (compared to just about all it's rivals) and is very similar in design to cars that have gone before it.
Technology in cars is a tricky area to balance too. For example, Brake Steer systems have been around for a while and are usually implemented where either a mechanical solution (LSD, et al) couldn't be found, or would be too labourious / costly to implement. Use of electrics is often the engineering "quick win", at the expense of driver feel.
I'm not a Ferrari fan, but from the cars I've been in (360, 430), I can't help feeling that they "get" petrolheads and cater for their desires better. The need to be part of the process, to work with the car for reward.
Hat's off to McLaren for making a car that can lap Dunsfold very, very quickly, but like the Nissan GTR, I can't help thinking it's a triumph of technology of driver skill / involvement.
None of this matter tho'. When I look at the car, look at the way it's been designed & engineered, look at McLaren's business model, I can't help thinking that, they don't care. Not in a bad way, just that they grabbed the headlines with some laptimes and really just want to sell a boat load of cars to people who have 200K and want a nice, fast car, but aren't bothered about the flamboyance, theatre and attention that supercars normally come with.
I think McLaren have a target audience some way off that of Ferrari, for example. Maybe they are trying to be the Clark Kent of the supercar world. Or maybe the volume selling 12C is meant to be the bread & butter, to pay for the real extravagant supercar, that's still in development and will make a Reventon look like Fiesta?
I'm with FuchsciaSteve, LuS1fer and evo magazine on this one. The car appears to dial out the insane streak that supercars have and appeal to many petrolheads. I want my fun car to be just that, fun. I want to feel that I was part of a great B-road romp, that the car "spoke" to me both through the noises it made and the feedback through the controls. I don't want to rely on computers and gadgets, to do the job for me. I don't want a car because of a lap time or a badge, I want a car because it gives me goosebumps and plugs right into my senses.
In short, I'm clearly not a McLaren target customer, I think many petrolheads aren't either and maybe that doesn't bother them one bit.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff