Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
flemke said:
Senna and Speedtail had the scoop as standard; I don't know the price on 600 or 720, but on 675 it was £27k as factory option and £41k as a retrofitted option (the first cars did not have it as a standard factory option because they development of it was not quite finished by the time those cars - maybe the first 100 or so - were in production.
This sounds like another of those urban myths started by someone who should know better, similar to when that American who claims to have owned one briefly did a video interview in which he stated that the cost of a service and a couple of other things was 'X' - at least twice the real number.
Well he was showing renderings, presumably from mclaren, with and without the scoop on his speedtail build. This sounds like another of those urban myths started by someone who should know better, similar to when that American who claims to have owned one briefly did a video interview in which he stated that the cost of a service and a couple of other things was 'X' - at least twice the real number.
And the mclaren website doesnt show a roof scoop on the speedtail
https://cars.mclaren.com/gb-en/ultimate-series/mcl...
jhoneyball said:
flemke said:
Senna and Speedtail had the scoop as standard; I don't know the price on 600 or 720, but on 675 it was £27k as factory option and £41k as a retrofitted option (the first cars did not have it as a standard factory option because they development of it was not quite finished by the time those cars - maybe the first 100 or so - were in production.
This sounds like another of those urban myths started by someone who should know better, similar to when that American who claims to have owned one briefly did a video interview in which he stated that the cost of a service and a couple of other things was 'X' - at least twice the real number.
Well he was showing renderings, presumably from mclaren, with and without the scoop on his speedtail build. This sounds like another of those urban myths started by someone who should know better, similar to when that American who claims to have owned one briefly did a video interview in which he stated that the cost of a service and a couple of other things was 'X' - at least twice the real number.
And the mclaren website doesnt show a roof scoop on the speedtail
https://cars.mclaren.com/gb-en/ultimate-series/mcl...
If it's for the Speedtail then, yes, they could charge a hundred grand. I don't know who the fellow Manny is and did not know to what model the comment was referring.
To each his own, but it seems to me just crazy to want to add a cosmetic, pretend roof scoop to a design that is already very carefully resolved and is intended to create a highly specific aerodynamic effect. It's not like the reason the normal Speedtail does not have an F1-type roof scoop is that nobody at McLaren ever thought of it. In designing the car, they tried to put in as many references to the F1 as they could, but they made the decision that the car would be better without a roof scoop. Now a buyer thinks that his car would look cool if it had one even though it was specifically designed not to have one...not something that I would do.
flemke said:
My mistake, as I wrongly thought that the standard design had a bit of a scoop along the spine. Now I see that although the intake aperture is there, it does not rise above the surface to force the air into the plenum:
If it's for the Speedtail then, yes, they could charge a hundred grand. I don't know who the fellow Manny is and did not know to what model the comment was referring.
To each his own, but it seems to me just crazy to want to add a cosmetic, pretend roof scoop to a design that is already very carefully resolved and is intended to create a highly specific aerodynamic effect. It's not like the reason the normal Speedtail does not have an F1-type roof scoop is that nobody at McLaren ever thought of it. In designing the car, they tried to put in as many references to the F1 as they could, but they made the decision that the car would be better without a roof scoop. Now a buyer thinks that his car would look cool if it had one even though it was specifically designed not to have one...not something that I would do.
McLaren: We have worked very hard and made an incredibly aerodynamic designIf it's for the Speedtail then, yes, they could charge a hundred grand. I don't know who the fellow Manny is and did not know to what model the comment was referring.
To each his own, but it seems to me just crazy to want to add a cosmetic, pretend roof scoop to a design that is already very carefully resolved and is intended to create a highly specific aerodynamic effect. It's not like the reason the normal Speedtail does not have an F1-type roof scoop is that nobody at McLaren ever thought of it. In designing the car, they tried to put in as many references to the F1 as they could, but they made the decision that the car would be better without a roof scoop. Now a buyer thinks that his car would look cool if it had one even though it was specifically designed not to have one...not something that I would do.
Buyer: I know better
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
flemke said:
My mistake, as I wrongly thought that the standard design had a bit of a scoop along the spine. Now I see that although the intake aperture is there, it does not rise above the surface to force the air into the plenum:
If it's for the Speedtail then, yes, they could charge a hundred grand. I don't know who the fellow Manny is and did not know to what model the comment was referring.
To each his own, but it seems to me just crazy to want to add a cosmetic, pretend roof scoop to a design that is already very carefully resolved and is intended to create a highly specific aerodynamic effect. It's not like the reason the normal Speedtail does not have an F1-type roof scoop is that nobody at McLaren ever thought of it. In designing the car, they tried to put in as many references to the F1 as they could, but they made the decision that the car would be better without a roof scoop. Now a buyer thinks that his car would look cool if it had one even though it was specifically designed not to have one...not something that I would do.
McLaren: We have worked very hard and made an incredibly aerodynamic designIf it's for the Speedtail then, yes, they could charge a hundred grand. I don't know who the fellow Manny is and did not know to what model the comment was referring.
To each his own, but it seems to me just crazy to want to add a cosmetic, pretend roof scoop to a design that is already very carefully resolved and is intended to create a highly specific aerodynamic effect. It's not like the reason the normal Speedtail does not have an F1-type roof scoop is that nobody at McLaren ever thought of it. In designing the car, they tried to put in as many references to the F1 as they could, but they made the decision that the car would be better without a roof scoop. Now a buyer thinks that his car would look cool if it had one even though it was specifically designed not to have one...not something that I would do.
Buyer: I know better
Even within purely aesthetic matters, it's not like no car could ever be improved. In the case of the Speedtail, however, where so very much attention was paid to getting the aerodynamics exactly right, and the car is not exactly wanting for a roof scoop, it is not clear why you would add one, unless you were trying to make the car slightly more like an F1.
I have just read a tweet that says Mansour Ojjeh has stood down from McLaren, replaced by his son, Sultan Ojjeh.
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1275046730...
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1275046730...
CraigyMc said:
I have just read a tweet that says Mansour Ojjeh has stood down from McLaren, replaced by his son, Sultan Ojjeh.
https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1275046730...
Mansour is not a kid anymore, it's public knowledge that a few years ago he had a grave health problem, and the original investment in McLaren came not from Mansour personally but from the family company, TAG. Indeed, the bad blood between Ron and the Ojjeh family got much worse when another member of the Ojjeh family, Mansour's brother Aziz, was deputising for Mansour during his recuperation. For them it's a family investment.https://twitter.com/adamcooperF1/status/1275046730...
jhoneyball said:
Worrying doesn't cover it!If I've read it correctly. This is a company desperately trying to raise money and having to take legal action against previous investors, who presumably, feel they are about to be shafted!
This is the sort of stuff that stops companies existing! How does a company with this amount of turnover, get itself into these sorts of messes! Is it just basic boardroom incompetence?
On a basic level it means investors aren't exactly lining up to throw money in. And these legal challenges wont help investor confidence!
ArgonautX said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
Is it not anything to do with Covid-19? I'm not necessarily surprised they're struggling.
Covid-19 made it worse, but they were heading in that direction 
ts case as he was quite happy to take the £Millions out in the good times, but not put them back in during the bad! 
S1KRR said:
jhoneyball said:
Worrying doesn't cover it!If I've read it correctly. This is a company desperately trying to raise money and having to take legal action against previous investors, who presumably, feel they are about to be shafted!
This is the sort of stuff that stops companies existing! How does a company with this amount of turnover, get itself into these sorts of messes! Is it just basic boardroom incompetence?
On a basic level it means investors aren't exactly lining up to throw money in. And these legal challenges wont help investor confidence!
When McLaren did their previous debt deal, the indenture stated that the company could not use 'all or substantially all' of its assets to pledge in a future loan so long as the original debt had not been repaid.
McLaren have now informed the 'Security Agent' (bank tasked with enforcing the terms of the original loan) that they wish to raise new money and for this they wish to do a sale/leaseback of their property (MTC and MPC) or to borrow by pledging the property and the heritage cars.
Of the current debt holders, a subset who appear to be mainly hedge funds and distressed debt buyers rather than the original investors from 2017, have challenged McLaren's freedom to do this. In reply, McLaren say that the property and heritage cars are not 'substantially all' of their assets and therefore the covenant would not be breached by any of the proposed transactions.
As to how McLaren found themselves in this position, although I agree and have said here before that McLaren Automotive should have done various things differently, it is an irrefutable fact that Covid has been devastating to many businesses, large and small. I believe that UK car sales in March and April were down 90%. If your income drops by 90% but you can lower your expenses by 'only' 50%, you've got a big problem.
flemke said:
I believe that UK car sales in March and April were down 90%. If your income drops by 90% but you can lower your expenses by 'only' 50%, you've got a big problem.
Car sales in the UK; March 2020: 254,684 (2019: 458,054) -44.4%
April 2020: 4321 (2019:161,064) -97.3%
May 2020: 20,247 (2019: 183,724) -89%
January 2020 was already -7.3% and February 2020 was -2.9% so even pre-lockdown things weren't rosy for car sales in the UK.
Data from https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/
In any case, Q1 for McLaren in 2020 was 307 cars, versus 953 in Q1'2019.
For those particularly interested in how the group is doing, there's this https://investors.mclaren.com/sites/mclaren-ir/fil...
CraigyMc said:
In any case, Q1 for McLaren in 2020 was 307 cars, versus 953 in Q1'2019.
Some of that must be also due to ageing lineup, 540/570 and 720S are past their prime, GT is not selling well either. The deals on 600LTs were such I'm guessing there was not much demand for it either at MSRP ArgonautX said:
Some of that must be also due to ageing lineup, 540/570 and 720S are past their prime, GT is not selling well either. The deals on 600LTs were such I'm guessing there was not much demand for it either at MSRP
My 2p on that.... Yes, not sure, not surprised (actual luggage is better than liquid luggage in a GT), I would imagine the next big thing (765LT), was far too close on the heels of the well received 600. If you can follow that.... flemke said:
S1KRR said:
jhoneyball said:
Worrying doesn't cover it!If I've read it correctly. This is a company desperately trying to raise money and having to take legal action against previous investors, who presumably, feel they are about to be shafted!
McLaren have now informed the 'Security Agent' (bank tasked with enforcing the terms of the original loan) that they wish to raise new money and for this they wish to do a sale/leaseback of their property (MTC and MPC) or to borrow by pledging the property and the heritage cars.
Of the current debt holders, a subset who appear to be mainly hedge funds and distressed debt buyers rather than the original investors from 2017, have challenged McLaren's freedom to do this. In reply, McLaren say that the property and heritage cars are not 'substantially all' of their assets and therefore the covenant would not be breached by any of the proposed transactions.
https://www.law360.com/transportation/articles/128...
Does anyone know how common it is for a borrower to be going to court to argue it's assets are unencumbered, rather than for the lenders to be going to court?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff