RE: McLaren Speedtail revealed as 250mph trendsetter

[Rich_W]

Nanook said:

I'm assuming it will be faster.

734bhp/tonne against the F1's 550bhp/tonne. 9.2s quicker to 300km/hr. Doesn't seem to be 'geared for speed at the expense of acceleration.

I'd be very surprised if it wasn't faster, pretty much everywhere.

It probably will be in a straight line. (Assuming that those figures are genuine and not the usual McLaren "estimates with no proof offered" )

But around a track? People assumed the Veyron (another car I'm no fan of) would crush circuits simply because it had a massive top speed. Granted this is lighter than the Bug, but its by no means a certainty. (though once again McLaren like to quote "dry" weights. As if my GF quotes her weight without blood in her ) And even if its faster than a 25yr olf F1 around Silverstone, will it be faster than its competitors?

[E65Ross]

Rich_W said:

E65Ross said:

E65Ross said:

Or are you saying that it doesn't have to look like this to go fast in a straight line?

Pretty much.

You best tell McLaren you know more about aerodynamics than them, because clearly without the teardrop design and long tail it would be able to go even faster if you designed it.

E65Ross said:

If that is the case, then you've clearly misunderstood the design ethos of the car, which was to build something incredibly "slippery"; it will go faster as it is designed than if it wasn't designed as it is, which is kind of the point.

You haven't missed the whole point of the design ethos of the car, have you?

I thought the idea was to carry 3 people, with luggage at very high speed to say the South Of France. Does it need to have such a stupid rear overhang to do that? A Range Rover Vogue at 5metres is not as long!

So it may be better at carrying 3 people at speed than a RR then

E65Ross said:

This thing is quicker than a Chiron to 186mph.

Well again, we're still waiting for actual figures. But then we never actually got an official P1 laptime. (I shall discount the Lanzante P1LM time as that was an outside effort by a company with a decent marketing department )

We aren't waiting for figures, it's 12.8 seconds to 186mph, 1 second faster than a Chiron despite having around 450bhp less. Must be geared for top speed instead of acceleration then

[Rich_W]

E65Ross said:

You best tell McLaren you know more about aerodynamics than them, because clearly without the teardrop design and long tail it would be able to go even faster if you designed it.

Clearly I'm no Aerodynamicist. But look at every other 250+mph road car out there. How many have a stupid long tail like this thing? Even the chucked together Hennesey Venom has a short rear overhang

E65Ross said:

So it may be better at carrying 3 people at speed than a RR then

Deflection is not a good look for someone who wants to win an argument is it.

It's a preposterously long car! Especially when you market it as a GT! If every time you're driving it around your mindful of a decent amount of car hanging out behind the rear wheels it spoils the enjoyment of a GT. How can you possible attack the sweeping roads up to a ski resort? How can you easily throw it around a multi storey when you get to Nice or Belin? This tail is a handicap away from the autobahn. So IMO it misses it's brief as a Grand Tourer.

Like the Veyron before it, top speed is not the best target for a car to be designed around.

E65Ross said:

We aren't waiting for figures, it's 12.8 seconds to 186mph, 1 second faster than a Chiron despite having around 450bhp less. Must be geared for top speed instead of acceleration then

On a pre production car with badly fitting body panels and no evidence of it having run at somewhere like Ehra Lessein? Yeah of course those figures are real world proven

Edited by Rich_W on Sunday 28th October 15:13

[E65Ross]

You can't claim the figures stated are a load of rubbish, and then claim the aero is ridiculous for a 250mph car when you don't know what the actual top speed is. Fact is all of those cars have considerably more power than this, too.

[Loyly]

I like it, more for it's focus on the top speed goal mixed with a degree of usability as an everyday car than for it's looks.

Those wheel covers though, they're gorgeous. They look like something off an old group C race car.

[Rich_W]

E65Ross said:

You can't claim the figures stated are a load of rubbish, and then claim the aero is ridiculous for a 250mph car when you don't know what the actual top speed is. Fact is all of those cars have considerably more power than this, too.

What?

The speed figures are CLEARLY estimates.
The Top speed would therefore be an estimate too

The only figure I imagine they've released that's not an estimate would be the engine HP. Given they've presumably Dyno tested it.

You're believing that because McLaren SAY this is an efficient, slippery shape (can you point to his co-efficient please I've missed it) that it is fine that it looks like this. I'm saying its not acceptable (to me) that a car looks so ridiculous JUST because it's fast in a straight line. That there's very little to suggest that had they not made it look like Lady Penelopes Rolls, they could not have made a car just as fast.

It's actually childish to make a car and focus on one thing, Top Speed imo

[E65Ross]

Rich_W said:

E65Ross said:

You can't claim the figures stated are a load of rubbish, and then claim the aero is ridiculous for a 250mph car when you don't know what the actual top speed is. Fact is all of those cars have considerably more power than this, too.

What?

The speed figures are CLEARLY estimates.
The Top speed would therefore be an estimate too

The only figure I imagine they've released that's not an estimate would be the engine HP. Given they've presumably Dyno tested it.

You're believing that because McLaren SAY this is an efficient, slippery shape (can you point to his co-efficient please I've missed it) that it is fine that it looks like this. I'm saying its not acceptable (to me) that a car looks so ridiculous JUST because it's fast in a straight line. That there's very little to suggest that had they not made it look like Lady Penelopes Rolls, they could not have made a car just as fast.

It's actually childish to make a car and focus on one thing, Top Speed imo

Well, looks are subjective. I, among others, think it looks quite good

It's all pointless arguing anyway, I don't think either of us liking it or disliking it will be effecting the order books.

[Rich_W]

E65Ross said:

Well, looks are subjective. I, among others, think it looks quite good

It's all pointless arguing anyway, I don't think either of us liking it or disliking it will be effecting the order books.

Reading between the lines (and maybe making 2+2 = 457). Flemke doesn't seem overly keen. AndyB via Instagram appears to have a similar pov.

And lets be honest they're the sort of person that McLaren want to impress, since they can afford cars me and you can't.

[simonrockman]

I like it, but I think I like the Senna more. And if I was in the league which bought either it would be the Valkyrie, especially after reading Newey's autobiography where he said Aston Martin's engineering was "a bit lacking".

[RJG46]

Benny the Beluga should sue the stylists.

[E65Ross]

RJG46 said:

Benny the Beluga should sue the stylists.

Eh? Aside the fact that the front of Benny the Beluga is basically a flat face which is quite the opposite of the car

[patrickarace]

Looks almost exactly like a contemporary re-imagining of the XJ220.

[Maldini35]

Rich_W said:

Reading between the lines (and maybe making 2+2 = 457). Flemke doesn't seem overly keen. AndyB via Instagram appears to have a similar pov.

And lets be honest they're the sort of person that McLaren want to impress, since they can afford cars me and you can't.

What point are you making?
I thought all 106 have been sold haven’t they?

[Dave-f28iw]

First thing that came to mind when I saw that was it looks like an XJ220!

No doubt impressive but if I had the money I’d have something different

[GroundEffect]

Rich_W said:

E65Ross said:

You can't claim the figures stated are a load of rubbish, and then claim the aero is ridiculous for a 250mph car when you don't know what the actual top speed is. Fact is all of those cars have considerably more power than this, too.

What?

The speed figures are CLEARLY estimates.
The Top speed would therefore be an estimate too

The only figure I imagine they've released that's not an estimate would be the engine HP. Given they've presumably Dyno tested it.

You're believing that because McLaren SAY this is an efficient, slippery shape (can you point to his co-efficient please I've missed it) that it is fine that it looks like this. I'm saying its not acceptable (to me) that a car looks so ridiculous JUST because it's fast in a straight line. That there's very little to suggest that had they not made it look like Lady Penelopes Rolls, they could not have made a car just as fast.

It's actually childish to make a car and focus on one thing, Top Speed imo

Good thing not everyone thinks the same as you - I think it looks fantastic.

[Rich_W]

Maldini35 said:

What point are you making?
I thought all 106 have been sold haven’t they?

106 Non refundable* deposits have been taken. Given the polarising looks do you expect all 106 to continue to stump up the rest? I wonder how many are high end dealers who buy to sell.

* Theres always a get out in these in any case.

GroundEffect said:

Good thing not everyone thinks the same as you - I think it looks fantastic.

Ok. Great. That's your right.

But what am I supposed to do with this info?

[E65Ross]

Rich_W said:

Ok. Great. That's your right.

But what am I supposed to do with this info?

Stop saying it looks ridiculous as if it's a fact?

[Rich_W]

E65Ross said:

Stop saying it looks ridiculous as if it's a fact?

I'm not sure which meme suits you better



or




You like it, great, I'm sure McLaren are well aware of your desire to quash any and all criticisms of any product that comes out of Woking.


Lots of people don't like it though because, well quite frankly, it looks ridiculous with that long tail*.

*Ironically this IS a LongTail. But because they used that nomenclature a touch prematurely on the 675 and more recently 600 they can't really use it for this car

[anonymous-user]

Maldini35 said:

What point are you making?
I thought all 106 have been sold haven’t they?

A good friend of mine had an F1 and an F1GTR and was denied a car so I can only presume they are all sold several times over!

[GravelBen]

Ahonen said:

For some reason this entered my head when I saw the McLaren. The Oldmobile Aerotech:

+1, first thing I thought of when I saw it.

Second one was the mid-80s Buick Wildcat concept.

Edited by GravelBen on Monday 29th October 04:56