The McLaren F1 does nothing for me

[BananaBok]

Anyone else feel the same?

Instead of something exciting it comes across as a sterile tool, with none of the drama of an F40 or Diablo for example. It's not a car you'd put a poster of on your wall as a boy, unless you're of those youngsters that kept their toys pristine in their boxes, and it's like they strived towards some sort of technical perfection and completely missed the emotional mark, which is largely what a true Supercar should include.

I can appreciate what they achieved with their constant fettling to make it a very useful tool, in so much as I can appreciate the engineering in a DeWalt drill, but it doesnt exactly inspire anything on an emotional level.

I cant figure out why it does nothing for me when other cars that are perceived as lesser cars do, but it can only come down to the sterile approach taken with it, and the desire to remove any Supercar personality to give the owner a very effective tool, but nothing more.

I wouldnt exactly turn one down, but there are plenty of other Supercars that would come above it on my want list, just because they make you feel excited to be near them, let alone drive them.

[g3org3y]

Ban.

[kambites]

I've never been overly keen on the styling (it's not bad, just a bit bland), but then styling has never been a particularly high priority for me.

[CHIEF]

From a drama point of view I agree, nowhere near as dramatic as a Lambo or F40 but I would imagine all that would be wiped out the moment you turned the key then it would feel all your Christmas's had come at once.

[MX7]

BananaBok said:

I wouldnt exactly turn one down, but there are plenty of other Supercars that would come above it on my want list

For about £170k?

Edit: Oh, you mean the original? Really?

Edited by MX7 on Tuesday 2nd October 09:11

[900T-R]

I come from a diametrically opposed perspective - the F1 is one of very few 'supercars' that excite me because its ruthless focus on the driver and driving, from its compact dimensions and low weight, large naturally aspirated engine to the central driving position and the obsessive attention to detail.

Afraid I see most if not all that went before (I'm making a possible exception for the 288GTO/F40) as chintzy lash-ups that are more about outlandish appearance than creating the best driving experience, perpetually overpromising and underdelivering, for people who are more concerned about displaying their wealth and erm, 'taste' than driving the darn thing.

[TheTurbonator]

I feel exactly the same, it's strange because as a boy I did have posters of them all over my bedroom walls and I loved it. However as the years went by, my obsession for them dwindled to the point that I now feel nothing for them.

I appreciate the engineering in them, just as I do with the Veyron but neither touch my heart like a F40 or the Delorean does.

[SmartVenom]

When I was 17 I went to the factory to see these being built, I left feeling very unimpressed. I also didn't think they looked particularly well finished (in all fairness the ones I saw were not finished). Certainly back then I'd have had an F40 over an F1 every time (I of course went for an MG Metro).

I think time has been very kind to the F1 as whilst contemporary road tests certainly praised the car and the philosphy behind it they were by no means as glowing and one sided as the reviews now.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like one now, but I do get where you are coming from.

[uncinquesei]

Lacks drama? I still remember Tiff's original road test on top gear for the incredible induction noise of that V12! I think this link might work...
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Azl-drqMk&fe...

[drivin_me_nuts]

The F40 never appealed. It's as subtle as a spade in the face. Clever design and purpose doesn't have to come with a brash and shouty presentation.

[TTGuy]

Yeah, I never thought much of the McLaren F1 either - I always preferred the Jaguar XJ220. The F40 and Countach were a bit before my time - the first Ferrari I liked was the F50 - probably prefer that to the Enzo.

I did have a picture of a Diablo on my wall, and it was the first 1:18 scale model car I owned.

Other cars I have no appreciation for that are generally loved by petrolheads: MX5, TVRs, almost all BMWs, any Fiat/Lancia/Alfa, Japanese turbosupercharged max-power type cars and Nobles. They have Ford Mondeo rear lenses - that's enough to turn me off them!

[Frik]

BananaBok said:

Anyone else feel the same?

I should think there's loads of people. We all like different things

To my mind, it is not a beautiful car, but it is an elegant one. The proportions are exceptional. Most supercars surprise you at how big they are, the F1 is the opposite. The approach was not to create something that looks utterly desirable first, so it's not surprising it doesn't stir these feelings immediately with the overall shape. The devil is in the detail though.

It's very much an engineers' car: Beautifully executed, well finished and without compromise. A very good example of what happens when a project is controlled by a single, stubborn person - the game was significantly moved on.

It would only be half the car without that engine though, which is a masterpiece.

[TTmonkey]

To me it was a disaterous design mistake, glorified only by the numbers it made.

The issue to me was the driving position. If you want a car so driver focused that it needs a central driving position then you should stick with a one seat design.

Any 'supercar' has to enable the driver to be seen posing around sitting NEXT to some gorgeoous totty. Otherwise, for 99.8% of supercar owners, they are pointless.


if the F1 had been a regular two seater, one which you could see your pasenger from the driving seat, and hold a reasonable conversation with (her) then they would have met their original sales targets and probably even extended it.

What is the drving position of the new P1? Anyone know yet?

[900T-R]

TTmonkey said:

Any 'supercar' has to enable the driver to be seen posing around sitting NEXT to some gorgeoous totty. Otherwise, for 99.8% of supercar owners, they are pointless.

This is exactly the cause of my loathing of pretty much the entire genre.

[pwd95]

900T-R said:

I come from a diametrically opposed perspective - the F1 is one of very few 'supercars' that excite me because its ruthless focus on the driver and driving, from its compact dimensions and low weight, large naturally aspirated engine to the central driving position and the obsessive attention to detail.

Afraid I see most if not all that went before (I'm making a possible exception for the 288GTO/F40) as chintzy lash-ups that are more about outlandish appearance than creating the best driving experience, perpetually overpromising and underdelivering, for people who are more concerned about displaying their wealth and erm, 'taste' than driving the darn thing.

This, spot on.

[BananaBok]

I cant deny that I love the drama and promise of a Supercar, it's probably a case of never havng had the oppurtuinty to experience them much that only leaves me the visual and written drama to spark my imagination of what it must be like to own one.

Im old, so my wall had a poster of a white Countach on it, alongside magazine picture cut outs of Ferrari 288 GTO's (and later, F40's), and then some very down to earth Toyota TRD corolla's simply because my dad had a Corolla so they were by default Supercar cool.

The McLaren is just too technical for me, perhaps a person who fixes expensive watches with microscopic tools would fall in love with one, but I never could, despite it being on paper being the most advanaced and exciting car of it's decade.

I suppose it seperates those who like to be seduced by the drama of a special car from those who appreciate the pure engineering. Bugatti Veyron is the same for me, I saw one in the flesh and thought it was an amazing piece of engineering, but wouldnt touch an Aventador for the sheer "Wow!!" factor, IMO.

[TheShadow]

Apart from the engineering it does nothing for me in road trim, add the LM aero kit and the look is transformed into a purposeful beast of a car. Same with the 12c

Always preferred the raw layout of the XJR15. Love the F40 but up close I have seen better built budget kit cars

[R11ysf]

OP how old are you?

I remember it being very "out there". Ok it didn't have a bog wing like the F40 but it had 3 seats! Space for 2 girls! It also had Gold leaf in the engine bay and a 230+ mph to speed. It looked great for the time and still looks great today.

And the doors opened like bat wings.

And it had 3 seats. 3. How cool is that!

[OllieC]

pwd95 said:

900T-R said:

I come from a diametrically opposed perspective - the F1 is one of very few 'supercars' that excite me because its ruthless focus on the driver and driving, from its compact dimensions and low weight, large naturally aspirated engine to the central driving position and the obsessive attention to detail.

Afraid I see most if not all that went before (I'm making a possible exception for the 288GTO/F40) as chintzy lash-ups that are more about outlandish appearance than creating the best driving experience, perpetually overpromising and underdelivering, for people who are more concerned about displaying their wealth and erm, 'taste' than driving the darn thing.

This, spot on.

I quite agree. There is no bullst with the F1

[cerb4.5lee]

When it was first launched i felt exactly the same it did nothing for me too, but as time has gone by i have learned to appreciate its greatness, the lightweight, unique driving position, natural aspiration & outright performance, i think it really was quite an awesome motor when you consider its achievements... & far more exciting than the turbocharged twin clutch offerings that drive themselves nowadays.