Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)

[flemke]

portland12345 said:

Such great insight.

Gonna have to find you previous posts.


If you don't mind answering few more questions.

Is there any journalist review that describes the driving aspect truthfully.

The reviews I have read so far just seem like fluff and its like coming off template for every car, doesn't seem to convey what I think the F1 is like to drive.

Your description of braking is very interesting.

It seems F1 tends to understeer quite a bit when pushed. From reading Gordon's notes from Driving Ambition he was aiming for 245/18 at front.

In the book he says they were aiming for 50/50 aero balance cl of 0.15 and 0.15 rear but I find that very suspect as watching the videos the front end seems to get light on high speed.


I have been trying to find the paper Steve Randle wrote on the design of the McLaren F1 suspension but no luck so far.

Actually I can't recall a review that I found particularly representative of how the car drives. As you say, the reviews that have been published have been pretty superficial.
This is an in-car video with Richard Meaden driving my car at Bedford about ten years ago. I think this after we had changed the wheels and tyres but before we had changed the brakes, springs, and dampers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7cKvZMLQnQ
Richard is an excellent driver and reviewer.

Yes, as standard it is set up to understeer - like pretty much every other road car as standard. The thing is, the F1 can go to snap oversteer, and then it gets tricky. Front tyres on production cars were 235/45/17.
I have had my car up to a sustained 221 and the front end was fine. (The standard car will not go faster than that because of the rev limiter.) At 205-210-ish the rear can start to feel a bit uncertain, but the front is fine.

Here you will find the illustrations from Steve's paper, and the IMechE number:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The Wikipedia article on the F1 contains a lot of the text from Steve's paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1


Eta: It appears that I have messed up the hyperlinks. If someone wants to show me how to fix them, I would be obliged.

Edited by flemke on Tuesday 17th July 20:45

[E65Ross]

That really is one of the greatest noises to ever be emitted from any car. Absolutely fantastic.

[portland12345]

flemke said:

Actually I can't recall a review that I found particularly representative of how the car drives. As you say, the reviews that have been published have been pretty superficial.
This is an in-car video with Richard Meaden driving my car at Bedford about ten years ago. I think this after we had changed the wheels and tyres but before we had changed the brakes, springs, and dampers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7cKvZMLQnQ
Richard is an excellent driver and reviewer.

Yes, as standard it is set up to understeer - like pretty much every other road car as standard. The thing is, the F1 can go to snap oversteer, and then it gets tricky. Front tyres on production cars were 235/45/17.
I have had my car up to a sustained 221 and the front end was fine. (The standard car will not go faster than that because of the rev limiter.) At 205-210-ish the rear can start to feel a bit uncertain, but the front is fine.

Here you will find the illustrations from Steve's paper, and the IMechE number:
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
The Wikipedia article on the F1 contains a lot of the text from Steve's paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_F1


Eta: It appears that I have messed up the hyperlinks. If someone wants to show me how to fix them, I would be obliged.

Edited by flemke on Tuesday 17th July 20:45

That video is amazing!

Best I have seen on the F1. So raw. Fantastic car control and amazing save in the middle.

That torque of that V12 monster is incredible can't imagine what if feels to have 500+ Nm at 2000RPM.

If you don't mind me asking what kind of spring and damper setup do you have now?

Reading your previous posts you're now on Bridgestone Potenza bigger tyres/different rims with CCM brakes. Those changes must have transformed your F1 into modern supercar.


.......
Thanks for links, I have those images from Steve Randle's paper. Happened to be reading all the previous volumes of this thread for last few hours. Tons of interesting information, some of it sadly so far back the images don't work anymore




Thanks for replying back. So cool to have owners like yourself that are willing to answer questions.


EDIT: WOW Peloton25 just sent me the full paper from Steve Randle. Amazing paper.

Edited by portland12345 on Tuesday 17th July 21:18

[Dr Gitlin]

portland12345 said:

Is there any journalist review that describes the driving aspect truthfully.

If someone will arrange the insurance for us, I am very happy to write exactly such a piece over at Ars Technica.

[thegreenhell]

Was it JR Hildebrand who wrote that excellent driving appraisal of the McLaren Senna? It would be interesting to read something written with that level of insight.

[vincegail]

thegreenhell said:

Was it JR Hildebrand who wrote that excellent driving appraisal of the McLaren Senna? It would be interesting to read something written with that level of insight.

Yes it was, and yes it sure would!

[portland12345]

I have just one more question on the F1 road car.

Does anyone know what the ride height is front/rear for standard F1?


Driving Ambition book states that ground clearance for the F1 is 120 mm (4.72 inches)


According to racecar engineering article F1 GTR's had 64 mm (2.51 inches) front and 84 mm (3.3 inches) rear height. (0.42 degree pitch angle)


I would assume the road car is at minimum 80+ mm at front and 90mm at rear but there is no source anywhere.

Apparently camber is -1.75 front and 0.75 deg rear. With bit of negative toe front and just bit of positive toe rear.

Edited by portland12345 on Wednesday 18th July 19:51

[flemke]

portland12345 said:

I have just one more question on the F1 road car.

Does anyone know what the ride height is front/rear for standard F1?


Driving Ambition book states that ground clearance for the F1 is 120 mm (4.72 inches)


According to racecar engineering article F1 GTR's had 64 mm (2.51 inches) front and 84 mm (3.3 inches) rear height. (0.42 degree pitch angle)


I would assume the road car is at minimum 80+ mm at front and 90mm at rear but there is no source anywhere.

Apparently camber is -1.75 front and 0.75 deg rear. With bit of negative toe front and just bit of positive toe rear.

120 at the front is correct. I cannot recall but there might be a bit of rake. Camber figures are correct. Toe is the same amount front and rear (obviously in opposite directions).

[isaldiri]

flemke said:

No two cars are exactly the same, but a car with:
- all fluids incl full (or nearly) tank of fuel,
- CD player,
- upgraded radiators and A/C,
- leather interior,
- extra bits such as tool and first-aid kits, warning triangle, wheel nut spanner,
- "free-flowing" (lighter weight and noisier) silencers, and
- no driver
will weigh between 1250 and 1280 kg.

That's interesting, I always was under the impression that fully fuelled/no driver the F1 was a lot under 1200kg. Just for comparison sake,would you know roughly what a Zonda with fuel would weigh? A carrera gt would be about 1450-1460kg just as a data point I would know for sure so I wonder how the Zonda would compare as they are possibly the closest things to the F1.

[E65Ross]

isaldiri said:

flemke said:

No two cars are exactly the same, but a car with:
- all fluids incl full (or nearly) tank of fuel,
- CD player,
- upgraded radiators and A/C,
- leather interior,
- extra bits such as tool and first-aid kits, warning triangle, wheel nut spanner,
- "free-flowing" (lighter weight and noisier) silencers, and
- no driver
will weigh between 1250 and 1280 kg.

That's interesting, I always was under the impression that fully fuelled/no driver the F1 was a lot under 1200kg. Just for comparison sake,would you know roughly what a Zonda with fuel would weigh? A carrera gt would be about 1450-1460kg just as a data point I would know for sure so I wonder how the Zonda would compare as they are possibly the closest things to the F1.

The noise of a Zonda F, in my opinion, is heaven!! Amazing though, isn't it, how much quicker cars have become. Zonda F was bonkers fast when it came out, it's now slower than a "normal" high-end sports car!

[flemke]

isaldiri said:

flemke said:

No two cars are exactly the same, but a car with:
- all fluids incl full (or nearly) tank of fuel,
- CD player,
- upgraded radiators and A/C,
- leather interior,
- extra bits such as tool and first-aid kits, warning triangle, wheel nut spanner,
- "free-flowing" (lighter weight and noisier) silencers, and
- no driver
will weigh between 1250 and 1280 kg.

That's interesting, I always was under the impression that fully fuelled/no driver the F1 was a lot under 1200kg. Just for comparison sake,would you know roughly what a Zonda with fuel would weigh? A carrera gt would be about 1450-1460kg just as a data point I would know for sure so I wonder how the Zonda would compare as they are possibly the closest things to the F1.

According to this article:

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/porsche-carrera-gt-...

real world weight of the CGT is about 1481, but of course we don't ever know (unless it is stated or we are there) how much fuel is in the tank. Two hundred kg, give or take, more than the F1 seems about right to me. Main disadvantage that the F1 has are its iron brake rotors.
I have no idea about the Zonda. I don' think I have seen an independent review in which a road-legal example was weighed. Having driven some and looked at them rather closely, it is hard for me to imagine how they could weigh as little as an F1. They're not especially heavy, but given the V12 engine, the extra width relative to an F1, the metal sub-frames, the wheels with purely decorative bumps that gratuitously add weight, and all the Italian pastry in the interior, I can't see a sub-1400 (real-world) car. I would have thought something close to CGT weight would be about right.

[WCZ]

flemke said:

- CD player,

many years ago one of our customers who runs a business relating to acoustic and audio consultancy/design for high end studios told me he worked closely with Gordon about the design of the cd player and audio system for the Mclaren F1, he was telling me about how much effort had gone into it (lots!). Gordon let him have a drive of an f1 when it was finally complete as an additional thank you.

[portland12345]

flemke said:

According to this article:

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/porsche-carrera-gt-...

real world weight of the CGT is about 1481, but of course we don't ever know (unless it is stated or we are there) how much fuel is in the tank. Two hundred kg, give or take, more than the F1 seems about right to me. Main disadvantage that the F1 has are its iron brake rotors.
I have no idea about the Zonda. I don' think I have seen an independent review in which a road-legal example was weighed. Having driven some and looked at them rather closely, it is hard for me to imagine how they could weigh as little as an F1. They're not especially heavy, but given the V12 engine, the extra width relative to an F1, the metal sub-frames, the wheels with purely decorative bumps that gratuitously add weight, and all the Italian pastry in the interior, I can't see a sub-1400 (real-world) car. I would have thought something close to CGT weight would be about right.

Those numbers are right. (not my photos but here is carrera/enzo/f40 on weight scales)

US Spec Carrera GT weight with full tank of fuel (1408.858kg) with full tank of fuel (1478.258 kg)
https://imgur.com/a/Q1dIEKl

US Spec Ferrari Enzo with full tank of fuel (1480.979 kg)
https://imgur.com/YtVnep9

F40 with full tank 1360 kg US spec
https://imgur.com/a/25K4eZT

F40 euro spec (1257 kg)
https://imgur.com/a/E1rmBp1


Only one close to F1 is F40 in terms of weight it seems.

Edited by portland12345 on Friday 20th July 15:05

[flemke]

portland12345 said:

Those numbers are right. (not my photos but here is carrera/enzo/f40 on weight scales)

US Spec Carrera GT weight with full tank of fuel (1408.858kg) with full tank of fuel (1478.258 kg)
https://imgur.com/a/Q1dIEKl

US Spec Ferrari Enzo with full tank of fuel (1480.979 kg)
https://imgur.com/YtVnep9

F40 with full tank 1360 kg US spec
https://imgur.com/a/25K4eZT

F40 euro spec (1257 kg)
https://imgur.com/a/E1rmBp1


Only one close to F1 is F40 in terms of weight it seems.

I am wondering how there could possibly be a difference of 103 kg between US and Euro versions of the F40.

[Sway]

Ferrari provided the scales...

[thegreenhell]

flemke said:

I am wondering how there could possibly be a difference of 103 kg between US and Euro versions of the F40.

US F40s have crash beams inside the front and rear bodywork to pass the Federal low speed crash test, as well as the visible external bumper strips, and I think they also have additional crash beams in the doors. They also have alloy fuel tanks instead of kevlar bags with a different pump setup. To compensate for the extra weight they have more power than Euro F40s.

US-spec Alfa 4Cs also suffer a similar weight penalty to Euro cars for the same reason.

[isaldiri]

flemke said:

According to this article:

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/porsche-carrera-gt-...

real world weight of the CGT is about 1481, but of course we don't ever know (unless it is stated or we are there) how much fuel is in the tank. Two hundred kg, give or take, more than the F1 seems about right to me. Main disadvantage that the F1 has are its iron brake rotors.
I have no idea about the Zonda. I don' think I have seen an independent review in which a road-legal example was weighed. Having driven some and looked at them rather closely, it is hard for me to imagine how they could weigh as little as an F1. They're not especially heavy, but given the V12 engine, the extra width relative to an F1, the metal sub-frames, the wheels with purely decorative bumps that gratuitously add weight, and all the Italian pastry in the interior, I can't see a sub-1400 (real-world) car. I would have thought something close to CGT weight would be about right.

Ah ok makes sense re the Zonda as I remember reading something that suggested it was 1230kg kerb weight which sounded very hard to believe especially in view of the F1 weight.

CGT weight I'm pretty sure of as I've been at Reading when they weighed 2 cars while doing wheel alignment/corner weights at 1460kg (fully fuelled).

[h0b0]

WCZ said:

flemke said:

- CD player,

many years ago one of our customers who runs a business relating to acoustic and audio consultancy/design for high end studios told me he worked closely with Gordon about the design of the cd player and audio system for the Mclaren F1, he was telling me about how much effort had gone into it (lots!). Gordon let him have a drive of an f1 when it was finally complete as an additional thank you.

Gordon goes into great detail about the selection process in this video

[flemke]

thegreenhell said:

flemke said:

I am wondering how there could possibly be a difference of 103 kg between US and Euro versions of the F40.

US F40s have crash beams inside the front and rear bodywork to pass the Federal low speed crash test, as well as the visible external bumper strips, and I think they also have additional crash beams in the doors. They also have alloy fuel tanks instead of kevlar bags with a different pump setup. To compensate for the extra weight they have more power than Euro F40s.

US-spec Alfa 4Cs also suffer a similar weight penalty to Euro cars for the same reason.

Okay, thanks.
Turns out there is quite a lot on this subject written on internet.
For example:


"The Tipo USA F40 is 6 times as rare as a Eu/ROW car, it has a reinforced chassis front & rear, it has twin-skinned aluminum gas tanks that will never leak or need changing for its lifetime, etc. so there are some tangible benefits with owning a USA F40.

"That said, they are both very cool, buy what you like, or better still, have both.

"If anyone wants a real data comparison between a USA F40 and the Eu/ROW F40, here it is:

"1. USA production spanned from early 1990 to late 1992 (European production started late 1987).
2. USA F40s weigh in at 2878 lbs dry. Actual USA F40s weighed by FNA with all fluids and half-a-tank of gas weighed in at 2969 lbs (European cars are stated at 2717 lbs dry).
3. USA F40s have aluminum gas tanks with twin fuel pumps mounted within the tanks (European cars have rubber fuel cells which require replacement each 7 years with externally located fuel pumps ).
4. USA F40s have twist-off gas caps (European cars have the locking items).
5. USA F40s were all supplied with the variable ride height system deleted (some European cars were thus supplied).
6. USA F40s have 2-peice seats with reclining backs and a passive restraint system (European cars have single-peice seats with 3-point seat belts).
7. USA F40s have their tow-hook attachment mounted directly into the chassis (European cars attach to the front body).
8. USA F40s have a final drive ratio of 10-29 (European cars are rated at 11-30).
9. USA F40s acheive maximum torque of 58.8 kgm/427 ft lbs at 4300 rpm (European cars acheive this same torque at 4000 rpm).
10. USA F40s are rated "at or above 500 bhp" @ 7000 rpm (European cars are rated at 478 bhp at same rpm).
11. USA F40s were the first car to utilize metallic (titanium) based catalysts to allow faster warm up and greater resilience.
12. USA F40s have a 'secondary air injection' for emissions that can be heard at each start up.
13. USA F40s had to pass DOT front, rear & side impact tests. These include the 2.5 mph front and rear tests. Accordingly the bodywork is strengthened.
14. USA F40s have a drag co-efficient of 0.34CX including the rear wing (European F40s are rated the same).

"With respect to the gear ratios, please note the following:

"First gear - 1:10.707 (USA), 1:10.069 (Euro)
Second gear - 1:6.628 (USA), 1:6.262 (Euro)
Third gear - 1:4.745 (USA), 1:4.463 (Euro)
Fourth gear - 1:3.724 (USA), 1:3.501 (Euro)
Fifth gear - 1:2.965 (USA), 1:2.787 (Euro)"


I don't know if the above is exactly right, and don't care, but it is interesting to see the difference between how much a modern car actually weighs and how much less it could weigh without the current safety requirements and the unavoidable mod-cons.

[flemke]

isaldiri said:

flemke said:

According to this article:

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/porsche-carrera-gt-...

real world weight of the CGT is about 1481, but of course we don't ever know (unless it is stated or we are there) how much fuel is in the tank. Two hundred kg, give or take, more than the F1 seems about right to me. Main disadvantage that the F1 has are its iron brake rotors.
I have no idea about the Zonda. I don' think I have seen an independent review in which a road-legal example was weighed. Having driven some and looked at them rather closely, it is hard for me to imagine how they could weigh as little as an F1. They're not especially heavy, but given the V12 engine, the extra width relative to an F1, the metal sub-frames, the wheels with purely decorative bumps that gratuitously add weight, and all the Italian pastry in the interior, I can't see a sub-1400 (real-world) car. I would have thought something close to CGT weight would be about right.

Ah ok makes sense re the Zonda as I remember reading something that suggested it was 1230kg kerb weight which sounded very hard to believe especially in view of the F1 weight.

CGT weight I'm pretty sure of as I've been at Reading when they weighed 2 cars while doing wheel alignment/corner weights at 1460kg (fully fuelled).

It's in that area. I wonder if the kind of paint made much of a difference. IIRC, the full primer/finish coats treatment for at least one colour added 40 kg to the weight of the unpainted body.