Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
national said:
flemke said:
Without getting into the question of whether it makes any sense at all for a cabriolet to have a rear wing, the main difference between these cars and the HS is that on these cars the rear wing is dual-plane.
Ah yes, I hadn’t noticed, thank you!I personally would love for you to explain about cabriolet and rear wing nonsense
It's a contradiction in terms. The point of a honking big rear wing is to provide substantial downforce for driving on a circuit. Nobody needs a wing for road driving.
If you have got a car that is sufficiently dedicated to circuit driving that it needs that rear wing, to have it in a cabriolet version adds weight that is superfluous and indeed contrary to the purposes of circuit driving.
That leaves me to conclude that the only reason that someone would have a cabriolet with a rear wing is to show off whilst doing 8mph laps around Harrods.
I have some cars with rear wings, but I bought those cars despite the rear wings rather than because of them. Driving a rear-winged car on the public road embarrasses me.
flemke said:
national said:
Thoughts on this MSO R, one spider one coupe, matching specs, 688PS
I don’t see how the coupe differs from the HS?
Would love to know others thoughts
Without getting into the question of whether it makes any sense at all for a cabriolet to have a rear wing, the main difference between these cars and the HS is that on these cars the rear wing is dual-plane.I don’t see how the coupe differs from the HS?
Would love to know others thoughts
On one hand given it's happened before it's not exactly a surprise although I'd have thought given who the HS customers are it would have given Mclaren some pause before interpreting 25 as another number....
isaldiri said:
flemke said:
national said:
Thoughts on this MSO R, one spider one coupe, matching specs, 688PS
I don’t see how the coupe differs from the HS?
Would love to know others thoughts
Without getting into the question of whether it makes any sense at all for a cabriolet to have a rear wing, the main difference between these cars and the HS is that on these cars the rear wing is dual-plane.I don’t see how the coupe differs from the HS?
Would love to know others thoughts
On one hand given it's happened before it's not exactly a surprise although I'd have thought given who the HS customers are it would have given Mclaren some pause before interpreting 25 as another number....
flemke said:
The one thing I would say is that, unlike with their other models, to be offered one of these cars was effectively to receive a gift. For that reason, I don't think a recipient has grounds to complain.
Fair enough yes, I do see what you mean. Don't suppose Mclaren are offering rebates for further units though as I was told at the time the number of 25 units was chosen to defray development costs of the original car for the chap who commissioned it...? 
The wing looks gopping....though I suspect it does serve a purpose; whether that purpose ever gets utilised is another matter. And I suspect they've worked pretty well with the aero to mean that even with the roof down it's still a pretty slippery design and that wing would still work quite well.....if you want to drive around a track with the wind in your hair!
isaldiri said:
flemke said:
The one thing I would say is that, unlike with their other models, to be offered one of these cars was effectively to receive a gift. For that reason, I don't think a recipient has grounds to complain.
Fair enough yes, I do see what you mean. Don't suppose Mclaren are offering rebates for further units though as I was told at the time the number of 25 units was chosen to defray development costs of the original car for the chap who commissioned it...? About 15 years ago I had McLaren make a part for my F1 out of carbon fibre. The original in all the cars had been some kind of thermoplastic. (After seeing mine, Gordon agreed that the original in all the cars should have been CF.)
In having it made, McLaren charged me for the CF tooling necessary. That was fair enough; they had made me aware of the fact beforehand.
Something like five years later, after my car had been serviced and they sent me the invoice, the man in charge said, "By the way, we are reducing your invoice by (something like) a thousand pounds."
I asked why.
He replied that an F1 owner had recently wanted the same CF part made for his car; McLaren had been able to use the tooling they had made years earlier for my car, and therefore they were giving we a retroactive 50% discount on the cost of the tooling.
I would have had no way ever of knowing, even if I had seen that guy's car, that they had kept my tooling and reused it. In that case, McLaren acted admirably. I am sceptical that they would do a similar thing in 2017.
E65Ross said:
The wing looks gopping....though I suspect it does serve a purpose; whether that purpose ever gets utilised is another matter. And I suspect they've worked pretty well with the aero to mean that even with the roof down it's still a pretty slippery design and that wing would still work quite well.....if you want to drive around a track with the wind in your hair!
Indeed.I wonder whether, in the RS, the lower element adds to the overall rear downforce and, if it does, whether the factory have added front downforce to balance it out. When I saw the car in the flesh recently, it did not appear that they had done so, but I couldn't swear to it.
flemke said:
Funny you would say that - it suggests the difference between McLaren Cars Ltd (of the F1 road car) and McLaren Automotive Ltd (of the 675LT, et al).
About 15 years ago I had McLaren make a part for my F1 out of carbon fibre. The original in all the cars had been some kind of thermoplastic. (After seeing mine, Gordon agreed that the original in all the cars should have been CF.)
In having it made, McLaren charged me for the CF tooling necessary. That was fair enough; they had made me aware of the fact beforehand.
Something like five years later, after my car had been serviced and they sent me the invoice, the man in charge said, "By the way, we are reducing your invoice by (something like) a thousand pounds."
I asked why.
He replied that an F1 owner had recently wanted the same CF part made for his car; McLaren had been able to use the tooling they had made years earlier for my car, and therefore they were giving we a retroactive 50% discount on the cost of the tooling.
I would have had no way ever of knowing, even if I had seen that guy's car, that they had kept my tooling and reused it. In that case, McLaren acted admirably. I am sceptical that they would do a similar thing in 2017.
Now that is quite fantasticAbout 15 years ago I had McLaren make a part for my F1 out of carbon fibre. The original in all the cars had been some kind of thermoplastic. (After seeing mine, Gordon agreed that the original in all the cars should have been CF.)
In having it made, McLaren charged me for the CF tooling necessary. That was fair enough; they had made me aware of the fact beforehand.
Something like five years later, after my car had been serviced and they sent me the invoice, the man in charge said, "By the way, we are reducing your invoice by (something like) a thousand pounds."
I asked why.
He replied that an F1 owner had recently wanted the same CF part made for his car; McLaren had been able to use the tooling they had made years earlier for my car, and therefore they were giving we a retroactive 50% discount on the cost of the tooling.
I would have had no way ever of knowing, even if I had seen that guy's car, that they had kept my tooling and reused it. In that case, McLaren acted admirably. I am sceptical that they would do a similar thing in 2017.
camshafted said:
Tom Hartley Jnr is selling 060 - http://www.tomhartleyjnr.com/used/1997/classic/mcl...
Interesting, thanks. Not sure how much the car has suffered by having been undriven for the last 20 years....I always cringe a bit when I see a non-expert dealer trying to sell an F1, especially via the internet, but it is what it is. I believe that car has been owned from new by a Japanese person, which perhaps helps to explain things.
flemke said:
Not sure how much the car has suffered by having been undriven for the last 20 years....
Indeed, I'd be interested to know what McLaren would insist on renewing/replacing should the new owner wish to drive it.I'd love to be proved wrong, but I doubt this is a car that will be bought to be driven.
flemke said:
Interesting, thanks. Not sure how much the car has suffered by having been undriven for the last 20 years....
I always cringe a bit when I see a non-expert dealer trying to sell an F1, especially via the internet, but it is what it is. I believe that car has been owned from new by a Japanese person, which perhaps helps to explain things.
I am sure Erik will be on at some stage to give the full lowdown on the yellow F1. It is a bit sad to see one of the greatest cars ever built come onto the market having not been driven in 20 years. I always cringe a bit when I see a non-expert dealer trying to sell an F1, especially via the internet, but it is what it is. I believe that car has been owned from new by a Japanese person, which perhaps helps to explain things.
Re. non-expert dealer; I think Tom Hartley Jnr has sold a number of F1s over the past few years. Out of interest, who do you rate as an 'expert' F1 seller? McLaren and David Clark? I am sure there are others that mere mortals aren't aware of!
flemke said:
camshafted said:
Tom Hartley Jnr is selling 060 - http://www.tomhartleyjnr.com/used/1997/classic/mcl...
Interesting, thanks. Not sure how much the car has suffered by having been undriven for the last 20 years....I always cringe a bit when I see a non-expert dealer trying to sell an F1, especially via the internet, but it is what it is. I believe that car has been owned from new by a Japanese person, which perhaps helps to explain things.
A US car sold for just shy of £12 million during the summer.
I suspect this is a £15 million car.
The F1 is the modern day 250 GTO. It's quite interesting that practically no road or racing car built from the mid-1960s onwards gets near to the F1 in value.
I doubt anything else will either.
I suspect this is a £15 million car.
The F1 is the modern day 250 GTO. It's quite interesting that practically no road or racing car built from the mid-1960s onwards gets near to the F1 in value.
I doubt anything else will either.
Given that values have been into 8 figures for a while now, is this a sign that the owner suspects the market is as high as it's ever going to be? Naturally, it's sad to see the car unused, but I can't deny the fascinating timewarp aspect of it. Would love to have a look around that!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff