Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
flemke said:
Someone (possibly someone I know well) wrote up on another motoring forum what I think is the most complete account of the whole affair. None of the professional ones is as good (IMO). I would be surprised if Joe Saward were to add anything to what is known, unless he could get an honest interview out of Max Mosley (oops - contradiction in terms!) and the straight scoop from Mike Coughlan as well.
Didn't Derek Smith off here write a concise appraisal of what happened?flemke said:
To add a bit to what I posted above, the Goodyear was actually a mediocre tyre. Because at the time of production Goodyear were McLaren's Formula One supplier, however, they were forced to use them. A couple of years later, Michelin said, "We can do better than that - let us try." For the next couple of years, one could buy either Goodyears or Michelins. I once saw Goodyear advertising the very unusual rear size (315-45-17) in a bog-standard ad in Car & Driver.
The thing about the Michelins is that, with their tall sidewalls, they give a very comfortable ride, but the sidewalls are thin and flexible and allow a great deal of lateral movement, which you perhaps don't want in a car with 650bhp, little downforce, and a low polar moment of inertia.
As explained to me by the man who designed the F1's suspension, in his current opinion the relationship between the "corner force stiffness" of the front and rear tyres is not ideal. That was the main reason why I changed to different size tyres: to get that balance right. My car handles far more predictably now than it did before. It also has a harsher ride, but I'll take the trade-off!
Thanks for that. It's always commented in road tests about the compliant ride and notable lateral movement. A set up that a manufacturer is unlikely to release today.The thing about the Michelins is that, with their tall sidewalls, they give a very comfortable ride, but the sidewalls are thin and flexible and allow a great deal of lateral movement, which you perhaps don't want in a car with 650bhp, little downforce, and a low polar moment of inertia.
As explained to me by the man who designed the F1's suspension, in his current opinion the relationship between the "corner force stiffness" of the front and rear tyres is not ideal. That was the main reason why I changed to different size tyres: to get that balance right. My car handles far more predictably now than it did before. It also has a harsher ride, but I'll take the trade-off!
Still sticking with Michelin or are you on Bridgestone (as S1KRR suggests)? Are they an off the shelf tread pattern or a bespoke design?
g3org3y said:
flemke said:
To add a bit to what I posted above, the Goodyear was actually a mediocre tyre. Because at the time of production Goodyear were McLaren's Formula One supplier, however, they were forced to use them. A couple of years later, Michelin said, "We can do better than that - let us try." For the next couple of years, one could buy either Goodyears or Michelins. I once saw Goodyear advertising the very unusual rear size (315-45-17) in a bog-standard ad in Car & Driver.
The thing about the Michelins is that, with their tall sidewalls, they give a very comfortable ride, but the sidewalls are thin and flexible and allow a great deal of lateral movement, which you perhaps don't want in a car with 650bhp, little downforce, and a low polar moment of inertia.
As explained to me by the man who designed the F1's suspension, in his current opinion the relationship between the "corner force stiffness" of the front and rear tyres is not ideal. That was the main reason why I changed to different size tyres: to get that balance right. My car handles far more predictably now than it did before. It also has a harsher ride, but I'll take the trade-off!
Thanks for that. It's always commented in road tests about the compliant ride and notable lateral movement. A set up that a manufacturer is unlikely to release today.The thing about the Michelins is that, with their tall sidewalls, they give a very comfortable ride, but the sidewalls are thin and flexible and allow a great deal of lateral movement, which you perhaps don't want in a car with 650bhp, little downforce, and a low polar moment of inertia.
As explained to me by the man who designed the F1's suspension, in his current opinion the relationship between the "corner force stiffness" of the front and rear tyres is not ideal. That was the main reason why I changed to different size tyres: to get that balance right. My car handles far more predictably now than it did before. It also has a harsher ride, but I'll take the trade-off!
Still sticking with Michelin or are you on Bridgestone (as S1KRR suggests)? Are they an off the shelf tread pattern or a bespoke design?
Unless I went to a 19/20 combination, which I did not want to do because I thought those low section rears would look silly on an F1, the best option was the tyres made by Bridgestone specifically for the Enzo: 345/35/19 and 245/35/19. I was confident that Bridgestone would continue to make those tyres for many years to come.
In the course of testing, I decided that I might want to go to a slightly small tyre on the front. The alternative was the Bridgestone 235/35/19 tyre designed specifically for rear-engined Porsches. I saw that 911s (997s, actually) had almost exactly the same front corner weights as the F1, which was encouraging.
At the time a couple of the guys with whom I was racing were full-time professional tyre testers for Bridgestone. I asked them if the 911 fronts were compatible with Enzo rears and they said no problem - the compounds and constructions were the same. That settled it for me and I have been happy with the result.
flemke said:
As explained to me by the man who designed the F1's suspension, in his current opinion the relationship between the "corner force stiffness" of the front and rear tyres is not ideal. That was the main reason why I changed to different size tyres: to get that balance right. My car handles far more predictably now than it did before. It also has a harsher ride, but I'll take the trade-off!
I can't help but thinking that a harsh ride would be expected from a car like the F1. If you wanted comfort then i'd be looking elsewhere.chunkytfg said:
flemke said:
As explained to me by the man who designed the F1's suspension, in his current opinion the relationship between the "corner force stiffness" of the front and rear tyres is not ideal. That was the main reason why I changed to different size tyres: to get that balance right. My car handles far more predictably now than it did before. It also has a harsher ride, but I'll take the trade-off!
I can't help but thinking that a harsh ride would be expected from a car like the F1. If you wanted comfort then i'd be looking elsewhere.ArgonautX said:
I've been watching and enjoying 90s F1 races recently. Which reminded me, how many F1 drivers or team members have bought an F1 when it originally came out in the 90s? Was is Berger who was driven by Ron Dennis when Ron crashed?
Yes, I believe Berger was his passenger.Off the top of my head, the only Formula One driver who technically has owned an F1 is Michael Andretti. He got it either as part of his deal to drive for McLaren in 1993 or as part of his severance when McLaren sacked him (I think the latter). Part of the agreement was that he could not sell the car for the first year of his ownership. He stuck to the agreement, and sold it literally 366 days after he had received it. It was still in the delivery wrapping.
Only other close connection to Formula One was that Jackie Stewart's son Paul owned an F1 for maybe three years. I believe he bought it with some of the money father and son received when they sold Stewart Racing to Ford. (Btw, Jackie said he really liked the way the car drove.)
flemke said:
Only other close connection to Formula One was that Jackie Stewart's son Paul owned an F1 for maybe three years. I believe he bought it with some of the money father and son received when they sold Stewart Racing to Ford. (Btw, Jackie said he really liked the way the car drove.)
To add a further F1 connection, i believe this is the car that Martin Brundle drove on his Supercars DVD, during which he had a rather exciting moment on a wet autumn road.thegreenhell said:
flemke said:
Only other close connection to Formula One was that Jackie Stewart's son Paul owned an F1 for maybe three years. I believe he bought it with some of the money father and son received when they sold Stewart Racing to Ford. (Btw, Jackie said he really liked the way the car drove.)
To add a further F1 connection, i believe this is the car that Martin Brundle drove on his Supercars DVD, during which he had a rather exciting moment on a wet autumn road.HDF kitted but with original road car wheels.
Cannot remember if it's the one with the funny headlights too.
flemke said:
As has been mentioned, in 2007 Ferrari conspired with Mosley to try to destroy McLaren. It was probably the most unsporting thing I have ever seen. It resulted in, among other things, Mercedes's walking away from McLaren, and we see how the two organisations have fared since, with Mercedes buying 12 world titles and Ron Dennis getting sacked.
Thank you for your reply. The F1 team really hasn’t been the same since that happened. thegreenhell said:
To add a further F1 connection, i believe this is the car that Martin Brundle drove on his Supercars DVD, during which he had a rather exciting moment on a wet autumn road.
I drive that stretch of road every single day (well, let's be more accurate and say 95% of days!).There's nothing in any way unusual about it.
There is a section where a connecting minor road which runs uphill from the B road leads to a pronounced (and very odd!) angled 'yump' - literally a trianglar lump of road running across one lane the width of a minor road. The edge of the road suddenly being around half a metre higher than the lane dividing line. But there are some noticeable buildings which would at least be seen in a shift in the trees visible through the side window.
F1GTRUeno said:
thegreenhell said:
flemke said:
Only other close connection to Formula One was that Jackie Stewart's son Paul owned an F1 for maybe three years. I believe he bought it with some of the money father and son received when they sold Stewart Racing to Ford. (Btw, Jackie said he really liked the way the car drove.)
To add a further F1 connection, i believe this is the car that Martin Brundle drove on his Supercars DVD, during which he had a rather exciting moment on a wet autumn road.HDF kitted but with original road car wheels.
Cannot remember if it's the one with the funny headlights too.
Chassis 023 does have some interesting tartan accents to the steering wheel boss and wheel cap centres taken from the Stewart days [I can't see that Liam Howlett from the Prodigy would've added them under his ownership....]
At the time I thought the fine given to Mclaren was totally ridiculous and Ron was surprisingly naive to think that certain individuals would not capitalise on the matter when he went to the FIA so openly with the facts at hand.
Life tends to even things out over time and others had their come uppence in the end.
However to blame Ferrari for the incident and then miss out on owning some great cars as a result seems odd, they did not commence the process which resulted in the FIA handing out such punishment, and were the innocent, effected party at the start, sure they made capital of it afterwards, but F1 is a business after all and its dog eat dog, but each to their own.
Same with Leno and his boycott of the brand because the US agent was not very nice to him years ago, such that he loves the F40 but wont take ownership of one even though Ferrari would gain nothing by him running a second hand product of theirs.
Life tends to even things out over time and others had their come uppence in the end.
However to blame Ferrari for the incident and then miss out on owning some great cars as a result seems odd, they did not commence the process which resulted in the FIA handing out such punishment, and were the innocent, effected party at the start, sure they made capital of it afterwards, but F1 is a business after all and its dog eat dog, but each to their own.
Same with Leno and his boycott of the brand because the US agent was not very nice to him years ago, such that he loves the F40 but wont take ownership of one even though Ferrari would gain nothing by him running a second hand product of theirs.
bolidemichael said:
The design aim for the F1 was to be a road car, not a race car - so I wouldn't rule out comfort expectations.
Indeed, although I think Gordon Murray messed it up a bit. Just IMHO. He built a fantastic base for a driver's car and then made it into some kind of a super GT that doesn't really work(again, IMHO, lightweight mid engined carbon tubbed cars do not make good GTs), ruining the potential for a better driver's car in the process. ArgonautX said:
Indeed, although I think Gordon Murray messed it up a bit. Just IMHO. He built a fantastic base for a driver's car and then made it into some kind of a super GT that doesn't really work(again, IMHO, lightweight mid engined carbon tubbed cars do not make good GTs), ruining the potential for a better driver's car in the process.
Now that is a cracker. How many times has that phrase ever been uttered by anyone in relation to the F1?To be fair, Flemke has spent a staggering amount of time and effort pretty much on that basis!
It is setup as a GT (large luggage capacity, space for actual human passengers, compliant ride, etc.) - but with a really low polar moment, light weight, immense engine that's mid mounted with effectively no flywheel (as I understand it).
It's a bit "neither fish nor fowl" - and well known for being very tricky and easy to catch out even a very capable ex-Formula 1 driver on a very normal road at very normal road speeds.
From what I understand of Flemke's changes, the biggest ones were to create more stability and predictability. With the attendent 'downside' of a firmer/harsher ride.
If I'm ever in a position, I'll be buying a F1 - it's my absolute pinnacle dream. I'll only do so if Flemke is still willing to share his mods (if I recall, he mentioned he'd do so for a respectable charitable donation?). Otherwise - it might as well stay a dream, as I'd be too scared to drive (and probably destroy!) it.
It is setup as a GT (large luggage capacity, space for actual human passengers, compliant ride, etc.) - but with a really low polar moment, light weight, immense engine that's mid mounted with effectively no flywheel (as I understand it).
It's a bit "neither fish nor fowl" - and well known for being very tricky and easy to catch out even a very capable ex-Formula 1 driver on a very normal road at very normal road speeds.
From what I understand of Flemke's changes, the biggest ones were to create more stability and predictability. With the attendent 'downside' of a firmer/harsher ride.
If I'm ever in a position, I'll be buying a F1 - it's my absolute pinnacle dream. I'll only do so if Flemke is still willing to share his mods (if I recall, he mentioned he'd do so for a respectable charitable donation?). Otherwise - it might as well stay a dream, as I'd be too scared to drive (and probably destroy!) it.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff