RE: McLaren Senna - full details
Discussion
Don Colione said:
Yet it is considerably uglier than the 720s (didn't believe I could ever be writing that), and i wonder how much could it really be around a track to justify the price differential.
My question would be how many of the owners would be capable of driving a stock 720 to its full potential let alone something supposedly far quicker on track?Don't start ranting, I know this consideration is meaningless as that's not why these cars will be bought but if it was my money and I couldn't realistically drive it any quicker It would need something else like stunningly good looks.
cookie1600 said:
I quite like it in that colour TBH. Not that I'm in the market for one, could afford one, or could use it as intended. It takes the McLaren design heritage (not long of course) on a little bit further.
By the way, do we have to proof read every article for PH these days or can you guys have a look through beforehand?
"as well as an overhauled intake system including a the roof scoop"
It's getting worse isn't it. At least this one's just an oversight. Cackett's piece on the Tesla in Space has a sentence that is sixty five words long. Sixty five! His prose is often unreadable, in any conventional sense.By the way, do we have to proof read every article for PH these days or can you guys have a look through beforehand?
"as well as an overhauled intake system including a the roof scoop"
Edited by cookie1600 on Wednesday 7th February 14:46
RacerMike said:
I'd love to know how they quote the downforce. The P1 was claimed to have 600kg....which is about the same as a GT3 car. And yet, the P1 GTR (which has more than the road car) is slower on slicks than a GT3 car, and subjectively from those who have driven it, has noticeably less downforce than a GT3 car. So that to me suggests that the numbers quoted for the road cars are 'optimistic' at best.
Are these not downforce numbers at max speed that McLaren quotes? I’d imagine a GT3 car makes them well below 200 mph, and that the figures at equivalent speeds would be much less comparable.CraigyMc said:
Where do you get 1 second slower to 62 from? I think you mean 0.1s?
It's traction limited in both cars anyway, so is really more of a function of what surface you're doing the test on, and the state of the tyres on the test car.
Your stats mention nothing about downforce, cornering or braking speed, which what the Senna is designed for, all of which obliterate the equivalent 720S values.
Both cars are limited in top speed to 340km/h by the way, it's just that the rounding has been done differently in each case. (340km/h is 211.2mph).
Where do you get 1 second slower to 62 from? I think you mean 0.1s?It's traction limited in both cars anyway, so is really more of a function of what surface you're doing the test on, and the state of the tyres on the test car.
Your stats mention nothing about downforce, cornering or braking speed, which what the Senna is designed for, all of which obliterate the equivalent 720S values.
Both cars are limited in top speed to 340km/h by the way, it's just that the rounding has been done differently in each case. (340km/h is 211.2mph).
- I apologize for the typo.. the embargo and all lol...
Your stats mention nothing about downforce, cornering or braking speed, which what the Senna is designed for, all of which obliterate the equivalent 720S values.
- About the downforce... I see them quote an extremely high number for this 800kg; but at what speed is it at that pressure? If I know anything about downforce it increases as speed increases, so they are more than likely quoting a max figure. This means that I have to be going at an extremely high rate of speed for it to be 800kg, otherwise it is not that high a figure.
"cornering or braking speed.....all of which obliterate the equivalent 720S values" - any solid evidence, other than your opinion?
Again, this car is not a game changer in any way...
It does not justify its NAME, asking price, or the hype that the bought out press is giving it.
No special engine, design, or anything that really sets it apart from any other current McLaren or high priced supercar for that matter.
Sorry, still give me a 20+ year old McLaren F1 LM anyday over this!!! It pains me to say that.
Matt Bird said:
Apparently it's all to do with an order, says McLaren:
"Airflow hitting the nose of the McLaren Senna meets four surfaces, and is turned by each element in sequence: the front splitter; the active aero blades; secondary fixed aero blades and the slot-gaps located between the headlights and daytime running lights."
Which sounds like it's linked to maintaining the aerodynamic balance.
Also there's an 'air path' between the headlights and the DRLs so the former can be located closer to vertical and increase main beam range. The air from there is directed around the front wheels "to calm the wake generated as the wheels turn during cornering". The air from the front aero blades and central front bumper ducts eventually feeds the rear brake ducts and the diffuser back there.
So it does all serve some kind of purpose, or so is being suggested!
I do love the way some people come on here and poo-poo car makers efforts and point out how they got their aero design all wrong. It beggars belief."Airflow hitting the nose of the McLaren Senna meets four surfaces, and is turned by each element in sequence: the front splitter; the active aero blades; secondary fixed aero blades and the slot-gaps located between the headlights and daytime running lights."
Which sounds like it's linked to maintaining the aerodynamic balance.
Also there's an 'air path' between the headlights and the DRLs so the former can be located closer to vertical and increase main beam range. The air from there is directed around the front wheels "to calm the wake generated as the wheels turn during cornering". The air from the front aero blades and central front bumper ducts eventually feeds the rear brake ducts and the diffuser back there.
So it does all serve some kind of purpose, or so is being suggested!
daveco said:
For someone who doesn't know their arse from their aerodynamics, how can a front end like that be more conducive for downforce compared to a standard, no gaping holes front end?
Downforce is about working the air passing over the body to induce a pressure change (and therefore a force) - a smoothed front end is about reduction of drag.anonymous said:
[redacted]
It might be interesting to see McLaren's actual words on that. I'm sure they sold all 500, sight unseen. It's also likely that a few cancelled their orders. I'm also certain that they will have been able to allocate any cancelled orders.They might have said "all 500 were sold sight unseen, and all 500 remain sold." It's a bit pedantic but do you really think that they have unsold cars? Really?
Don Colione said:
- About the downforce... I see them quote an extremely high number for this 800kg; but at what speed is it at that pressure? If I know anything about downforce it increases as speed increases, so they are more than likely quoting a max figure. This means that I have to be going at an extremely high rate of speed for it to be 800kg, otherwise it is not that high a figure.
"cornering or braking speed.....all of which obliterate the equivalent 720S values" - any solid evidence, other than your opinion?
The 800kg of downforce is at 155mph (250km/h), at which point the car starts to bleed downforce off to maintain 800kg of downforce up to the top speed."cornering or braking speed.....all of which obliterate the equivalent 720S values" - any solid evidence, other than your opinion?
This is done to keep the loads on the tyres sensible. The equivalent P1 value is 600kg.
The braking metrics are available - it's not just opinion. The thing demolishes a P1 under braking.
200km/h to 0km/h in 100m is nuts. (P1 value 116m).
If you think a car with 800kg of downforce that only has the intertia of 1200kg won't obliterate something like a P1 you need to evaluate why and let us know what your thoughts are.
CraigyMc said:
The 800kg of downforce is at 155mph (250km/h), at which point the car starts to bleed downforce off to maintain 800kg of downforce up to the top speed.
This is done to keep the loads on the tyres sensible. The equivalent P1 value is 600kg.
The braking metrics are available - it's not just opinion. The thing demolishes a P1 under braking.
200km/h to 0km/h in 100m is nuts. (P1 value 116m).
If you think a car with 800kg of downforce that only has the intertia of 1200kg won't obliterate something like a P1 you need to evaluate why and let us know what your thoughts are.
- Not going to go back and forth, please address my other claims... This is done to keep the loads on the tyres sensible. The equivalent P1 value is 600kg.
The braking metrics are available - it's not just opinion. The thing demolishes a P1 under braking.
200km/h to 0km/h in 100m is nuts. (P1 value 116m).
If you think a car with 800kg of downforce that only has the intertia of 1200kg won't obliterate something like a P1 you need to evaluate why and let us know what your thoughts are.
Like you said the 800k is at 155mph so that is way to much for public roads and most tracks. Also, the P1 is no slouch so no I do not think this car will "obliterate" it or a 720S, my opinion.
GreatGranny said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Was just thinking that.He now seems to be intent on buying lots of M3s most which are heavily modified for track use.
That E36 M3 is an absolute weapon
If I was planning a ring day, I'd probably be giving apex a call to have a go in their up
Don Colione said:
- Not going to go back and forth, please address my other claims...
Like you said the 800k is at 155mph so that is way to much for public roads and most tracks. Also, the P1 is no slouch so no I do not think this car will "obliterate" it or a 720S, my opinion.
Like you said the 800k is at 155mph so that is way to much for public roads and most tracks. Also, the P1 is no slouch so no I do not think this car will "obliterate" it or a 720S, my opinion.
The development team at McLaren have tested this car side by side with a 720S for a direct comparison. A benchmark if you will.
Of course they have - wouldn’t you?
Still, if you don’t THINK it’ll be much faster we should probably all just forget it and move on...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff