Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
E65Ross said:
Sway said:
cc8s said:
This probably isn't the most inappropriate place to post this:
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bugatt...
I am interested to see it as noted as '"near production" spec' when infact it has
- aerodynamic changes
- almost 100 bhp more
- structural changes (vis a vis 'an additional safety cell')
Seems a stretch - but good work to them!
Does anyone know what modifications were made to the F1, if any, when it took its record?
That's a bit cheeky! https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/bugatt...
I am interested to see it as noted as '"near production" spec' when infact it has
- aerodynamic changes
- almost 100 bhp more
- structural changes (vis a vis 'an additional safety cell')
Seems a stretch - but good work to them!
Does anyone know what modifications were made to the F1, if any, when it took its record?
Iirc, changes to F1 were fairly minimal - increased rev limit, and I think wing mirrors were removed and panel lines taped.
If Gordon Murray's brief had been (and he had accepted) merely to make something with the highest possible Vmax, the F1 would have been turbocharged, would have weighed a lot more, might not even have been mid-engined, would not have won Le Mans, and so on. It would have been a different thing. The great thing about the F1's Vmax was that, without upping the car's NA horsepower, a car for which Vmax was not a consideration ended up setting the world record and holding it for many years.
flemke said:
Re cheekiness, I think the key difference is that the only point of the Veyron/Chiron project is Vmax. Yes, they are beautifully crafted, but the very raison d'etre of the first model was to do 400 kph, and of the second to be a bit irrelevantly faster than the first.
If Gordon Murray's brief had been (and he had accepted) merely to make something with the highest possible Vmax, the F1 would have been turbocharged, would have weighed a lot more, might not even have been mid-engined, would not have won Le Mans, and so on. It would have been a different thing. The great thing about the F1's Vmax was that, without upping the car's NA horsepower, a car for which Vmax was not a consideration ended up setting the world record and holding it for many years.
Oh I totally agree, but I don't think that impacts the Chiron speed run being any more cheeky than the F1 run, in my opinion If Gordon Murray's brief had been (and he had accepted) merely to make something with the highest possible Vmax, the F1 would have been turbocharged, would have weighed a lot more, might not even have been mid-engined, would not have won Le Mans, and so on. It would have been a different thing. The great thing about the F1's Vmax was that, without upping the car's NA horsepower, a car for which Vmax was not a consideration ended up setting the world record and holding it for many years.
Both are wonderful cars in their own right, but yes, totally different.
E65Ross said:
flemke said:
Re cheekiness, I think the key difference is that the only point of the Veyron/Chiron project is Vmax. Yes, they are beautifully crafted, but the very raison d'etre of the first model was to do 400 kph, and of the second to be a bit irrelevantly faster than the first.
If Gordon Murray's brief had been (and he had accepted) merely to make something with the highest possible Vmax, the F1 would have been turbocharged, would have weighed a lot more, might not even have been mid-engined, would not have won Le Mans, and so on. It would have been a different thing. The great thing about the F1's Vmax was that, without upping the car's NA horsepower, a car for which Vmax was not a consideration ended up setting the world record and holding it for many years.
Oh I totally agree, but I don't think that impacts the Chiron speed run being any more cheeky than the F1 run, in my opinion If Gordon Murray's brief had been (and he had accepted) merely to make something with the highest possible Vmax, the F1 would have been turbocharged, would have weighed a lot more, might not even have been mid-engined, would not have won Le Mans, and so on. It would have been a different thing. The great thing about the F1's Vmax was that, without upping the car's NA horsepower, a car for which Vmax was not a consideration ended up setting the world record and holding it for many years.
Both are wonderful cars in their own right, but yes, totally different.
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
what are the big sacrifices of the chiron? I don't see anyWCZ said:
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
what are the big sacrifices of the chiron? I don't see anyIn order to achieve the high speeds:
- turbocharging,
- vastly more BHP than could be used in road driving,
- immense cooling demands,
- special tyres required the only purpose of which is to cope with the Vmax,
- compromised packaging because of the space consumed by the huge engine and all the radiators,
- 600 kgs more weight than should be necessary.
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
I would posit that simply 'because they can' suffices in this sense?As much as I agree brilliance of the F1 is that almost the last thing it was designed for was the VMAX which became such a huge part of the legend of the car and everything else about it came first, I completely admire the idea of Piech telling the Bugatti engineers 'this is what the car is, make it go this fast' and then they set about it. It's a different type of single mindedness to Murray but it's admirable all the same.
When they've already made the Veyron, Veyron SS, Chiron and Chrion Sport and hit the speeds they'd hit, they might as well have done exactly what they've done and gone for 300mph because why the hell not?
I believe it's been hit before by a road car (Ford GT with ridiculous turbos IIRC?) before but this is mainstream and to finally see 300mph, even if not officially in the books as a record, is wonderful to witness and try and fathom IMO. Utterly surreal to think about it when most of the planet is used to travelling at 70/80 on a good day getting from A to B.
Edited by F1GTRUeno on Wednesday 4th September 01:32
flemke said:
WCZ said:
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
what are the big sacrifices of the chiron? I don't see anyIn order to achieve the high speeds:
- turbocharging,
- vastly more BHP than could be used in road driving,
- immense cooling demands,
- special tyres required the only purpose of which is to cope with the Vmax,
- compromised packaging because of the space consumed by the huge engine and all the radiators,
- 600 kgs more weight than should be necessary.
Its not like a Chiron owner wont have some other lightweight special tucked away somewhere.
I feel that the 'achievement' of the VMAx is not the whole 'amazing' thing about the car and what has been achieved - it is the fact that it is done in a relatively comfortable and cosseted car - that requires no tolerance to it being 'a car' first and foremost that can simply be driven around in - rather than crawling through a roll bar, on a CF thin cradle seat and without sound deadening.
One hell of an achievement
One hell of an achievement
I thought the F1 that produced the record was an XP model not a production run car anyway, who knows what had been fettled to that car during it experimental phase.
Both that car and the Bugatti are hardly examples that have been taken straight out of the showroom, driven to the location and then simply set a record.
Impressive none the less for both, but some twisting of the facts in each case.
Both that car and the Bugatti are hardly examples that have been taken straight out of the showroom, driven to the location and then simply set a record.
Impressive none the less for both, but some twisting of the facts in each case.
p1stonhead said:
flemke said:
WCZ said:
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
what are the big sacrifices of the chiron? I don't see anyIn order to achieve the high speeds:
- turbocharging,
- vastly more BHP than could be used in road driving,
- immense cooling demands,
- special tyres required the only purpose of which is to cope with the Vmax,
- compromised packaging because of the space consumed by the huge engine and all the radiators,
- 600 kgs more weight than should be necessary.
Its not like a Chiron owner wont have some other lightweight special tucked away somewhere.
When my friend drove Flemke's P1 he said it was frustrating having to not use full throttle as it was just too fast on the road. He said he managed to pin the throttle once.
F1GTRUeno said:
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
I would posit that simply 'because they can' suffices in this sense?As much as I agree brilliance of the F1 is that almost the last thing it was designed for was the VMAX which became such a huge part of the legend of the car and everything else about it came first, I completely admire the idea of Piech telling the Bugatti engineers 'this is what the car is, make it go this fast' and then they set about it. It's a different type of single mindedness to Murray but it's admirable all the same.
When they've already made the Veyron, Veyron SS, Chiron and Chrion Sport and hit the speeds they'd hit, they might as well have done exactly what they've done and gone for 300mph because why the hell not?
I believe it's been hit before by a road car (Ford GT with ridiculous turbos IIRC?) before but this is mainstream and to finally see 300mph, even if not officially in the books as a record, is wonderful to witness and try and fathom IMO. Utterly surreal to think about it when most of the planet is used to travelling at 70/80 on a good day getting from A to B.
First we had 400 kph. Okay, fine, a big round number.
Now we have another big round number, which exists only because some in the automotive media use the metric system and others the imperial system.
What's next? In the same way that we have different time zones based on longitude, and further non-hourly variations in such places as India, Newfoundland and Nepal, might there be a country that measures in neither kph nor mph but on another scale? Will Volkswagen's next target be the next big round number on that third scale?
Volkswagen set out to make a production road car with the world's highest Vmax, with an utterly arbitrary target of 400 kph. They achieved that, by doing some superb engineering that required the compromises that I mentioned above. Although it might be an interesting historical footnote that, having done that, they made a slightly faster one for the sole purpose of being able to sell another 450 units and make back in profit everything that they lost on the first one, in the greater scheme of things the Vmax of the Chiron is pretty meaningless - just as the Veyron's was and just as the F1's was.
PAUL500 said:
I thought the F1 that produced the record was an XP model not a production run car anyway, who knows what had been fettled to that car during it experimental phase.
Both that car and the Bugatti are hardly examples that have been taken straight out of the showroom, driven to the location and then simply set a record.
Impressive none the less for both, but some twisting of the facts in each case.
I personally know the majority of the team that took the car to Ehra Lessien and ran it that day and I have discussed the Vmax run with them. Apart from the mods shown in Mr Hurst's photo, the only other mods were raising the rev limit and raising the tyre pressures. There was nothing done at the factory beforehand; XP5 was a standard car and everything that was changed was done in the open air in the parking area of the facility.Both that car and the Bugatti are hardly examples that have been taken straight out of the showroom, driven to the location and then simply set a record.
Impressive none the less for both, but some twisting of the facts in each case.
p1stonhead said:
flemke said:
WCZ said:
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
what are the big sacrifices of the chiron? I don't see anyIn order to achieve the high speeds:
- turbocharging,
- vastly more BHP than could be used in road driving,
- immense cooling demands,
- special tyres required the only purpose of which is to cope with the Vmax,
- compromised packaging because of the space consumed by the huge engine and all the radiators,
- 600 kgs more weight than should be necessary.
Its not like a Chiron owner wont have some other lightweight special tucked away somewhere.
flemke said:
p1stonhead said:
flemke said:
WCZ said:
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
what are the big sacrifices of the chiron? I don't see anyIn order to achieve the high speeds:
- turbocharging,
- vastly more BHP than could be used in road driving,
- immense cooling demands,
- special tyres required the only purpose of which is to cope with the Vmax,
- compromised packaging because of the space consumed by the huge engine and all the radiators,
- 600 kgs more weight than should be necessary.
Its not like a Chiron owner wont have some other lightweight special tucked away somewhere.
The3rdDukeofB said:
I feel that the 'achievement' of the VMAx is not the whole 'amazing' thing about the car and what has been achieved - it is the fact that it is done in a relatively comfortable and cosseted car - that requires no tolerance to it being 'a car' first and foremost that can simply be driven around in - rather than crawling through a roll bar, on a CF thin cradle seat and without sound deadening.
One hell of an achievement
I agree that the Veyron/Chiron project is one hell of an engineering achievement. I do think however that your references to roll bars, thin CF seats and lack of sound deadening are irrelevancies. Vmax is a function of BHP in relation to frontal area and drag (with the marginal influence of rolling resistance). Whether the interior of the car has roll bars, thin seats or sound deadening has nothing to do with Vmax. With enough bhp, a Mercedes S-class could go faster than the Chiron.One hell of an achievement
E65Ross said:
flemke said:
p1stonhead said:
flemke said:
WCZ said:
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
what are the big sacrifices of the chiron? I don't see anyIn order to achieve the high speeds:
- turbocharging,
- vastly more BHP than could be used in road driving,
- immense cooling demands,
- special tyres required the only purpose of which is to cope with the Vmax,
- compromised packaging because of the space consumed by the huge engine and all the radiators,
- 600 kgs more weight than should be necessary.
Its not like a Chiron owner wont have some other lightweight special tucked away somewhere.
My Mondeo estate is better for humping s
t to the dump. It’s literally a better car than a Chiron - at that 
E65Ross said:
But cars are built to serve different purposes and different desires. If you want a car to be a great long distance and quiet comfortable car to be ferried about in the back of on a long motorway drive, a McLaren F1 is a pretty lousy car compared to a Rolls Royce Phantom. That doesn't mean the F1 is a bad car though. Its USP is different. The Chiron is to be bonkers fast in a straight line whilst still being quiet, comfortable and luxurious. For that, it's probably better than the F1. If you want a raw, thrilling driving experience, the F1 is the better car.
I would not disagree with anything that you say.I would suggest that most Veyron/Chiron buyers are consumers, not drivers, and that gets to the issue with the car. The car is largely about ostentation and bragging rights. For Piech and the VAG engineers it was a challenge that they met magnificently, but in order to justify the cost of their endeavour they were forced to turn the engineering challenge into a luxury good aimed at a market of which almost no member had the remotest appreciation of what the engineers had achieved.
The same can be said to some degree about most exotic cars, but in the Veyron/Chiron it approaches an extreme.
p1stonhead said:
E65Ross said:
flemke said:
p1stonhead said:
flemke said:
WCZ said:
flemke said:
I think the sense of cheekiness comes from the fact that, when you're already making big sacrifices in order to build the world's fastest (in Vmax) production car, what is the point of bending the rules in order to get a measly couple of mph more? It already is what it is.
what are the big sacrifices of the chiron? I don't see anyIn order to achieve the high speeds:
- turbocharging,
- vastly more BHP than could be used in road driving,
- immense cooling demands,
- special tyres required the only purpose of which is to cope with the Vmax,
- compromised packaging because of the space consumed by the huge engine and all the radiators,
- 600 kgs more weight than should be necessary.
Its not like a Chiron owner wont have some other lightweight special tucked away somewhere.
My Mondeo estate is better for humping s
t to the dump. It’s literally a better car than a Chiron - at that 
flemke said:
The3rdDukeofB said:
I feel that the 'achievement' of the VMAx is not the whole 'amazing' thing about the car and what has been achieved - it is the fact that it is done in a relatively comfortable and cosseted car - that requires no tolerance to it being 'a car' first and foremost that can simply be driven around in - rather than crawling through a roll bar, on a CF thin cradle seat and without sound deadening.
One hell of an achievement
I agree that the Veyron/Chiron project is one hell of an engineering achievement. I do think however that your references to roll bars, thin CF seats and lack of sound deadening are irrelevancies. Vmax is a function of BHP in relation to frontal area and drag (with the marginal influence of rolling resistance). Whether the interior of the car has roll bars, thin seats or sound deadening has nothing to do with Vmax. With enough bhp, a Mercedes S-class could go faster than the Chiron.One hell of an achievement
Is the inside of an 'Egg anyway as comfortable and luxurious as a Chiron for example? or does the owner have to live with the scaffolding?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff