Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)

[flemke]

PushedDover said:

flemke said:

I drove it just a bit. It was of the same genre as the 993 RS CS - light, powerful, direct feelsome steering, great brakes, seating position excellent, balanced chassis. Visibility less good than in 993.
On the performance numbers, by any criterion it obviously is well beyond the 993. I would rather drive the 993, but maybe that's because I prefer normally-aspirated, a manual 'box, and small-ish rather than quite big cars.
What did surprise me was how noisy it is in the Senna's cabin. The 993 is noisy, but the noise is coming from one direction and feels 'normal'. In the Senna the carbon shell seems to amplify the sound in an unpleasant, artificial way.

Totally see why all the ones I mentioned before have such low mileage when you describe it like that

It's nice enough to drive on the road, but you need the right road!

[flemke]

ArgonautX said:

Flemke, do you know what are the HW changes in the LM spec engine?

Could a combination of non hdf car and LM engine hit 400 kmh? Or maybe a longtail with no rear wing?

Apart from a higher rev limit, I don't know how the engines differed.
To get to 400 kph, that would be an increase in speed of 2.3% and would require in an increase in power of 7%.
The standard engine started out at about 630 bhp (technically they had to be at least 627 but in reality they all came in above that). Once an engine was fully run-in (after about 20,000 miles), it would produce 645-650. If a standard engine were set up with the factory-retrofitted high-flowing exhaust system, that would add another 15-20 bhp, which would raise the number up to IRO 665.
The engine in XP5 (the car that set the record at 391) had the mileage to be fully run-in but had the standard exhaust, so let's say that it produced 647. Add 7% to that and you'd need 692 bhp to reach 400 kph.
The LM engine's stated bhp was 680 (with the free-flowing exhaust, which was standard on it). Would you get to 692 after the LM engine was fully run-in? Maybe, although I presume that as an engine is tweaked to get closer to its theoretical maximum bhp output, the gains from running-in would diminish.
It would be close.
I think I have related this here before, but we once took to Bruntingthorpe my car and my friend's car - on which he had just spent a lot of money to have the LM engine and HDK fitted. Because of his car's increased drag (and slightly increased frontal area), my car was faster in a straight line. My friend was not happy!

[flemke]

shambolic said:

Have a look at limited release of Adidas Spezial and city series trainers.
Exactly the same. All snapped up on release and never worn, or on sale within days on eBay for 200-500% profit.
Limited release and desirability, on a lesser price scale obviously. But same supply and demand scenario.
Just sad buying a pair of shoes to never wear.
I wear all mine as I like them. Bugger leaving them in the wardrobe to look at.
I’m a bit drunk and don’t actually know where I was going with this

I think there is a difference between buying someone's well-used car and buying their well-used shoes.

[shambolic]

flemke said:

I think there is a difference between buying someone's well-used car and buying their well-used shoes.

I was drunk last night
But my point was folk buying new and not wanting to use what they buy for themselves but selling it at a premium then artificially inflating price.

[Ali2202]

shambolic said:

flemke said:

I think there is a difference between buying someone's well-used car and buying their well-used shoes.

I was drunk last night
But my point was folk buying new and not wanting to use what they buy for themselves but selling it at a premium then artificially inflating price.

Slipper Flippers. Whatever next?

[SpeckledJim]

Ali2202 said:

shambolic said:

flemke said:

I think there is a difference between buying someone's well-used car and buying their well-used shoes.

I was drunk last night
But my point was folk buying new and not wanting to use what they buy for themselves but selling it at a premium then artificially inflating price.

Slipper Flippers. Whatever next?

Trainer Gainers.

Selly Welly.

Clogger Floggers?

[jhoneyball]

flemke said:

I hear you. I decided a few years ago that I was too old ever to become a decent motorbike rider and thus it would be stupid for me to try.
Although in some ways even less practical than a bike, the Rocket is a good example of a car that can be enjoyed at speeds that are neither illegal nor anti-social.

Well I got my motorbike license in my late 40s (8 years ago now). Have done best part of 100k miles on my various bikes now.

You are not too old to learn. And it makes you a far better car driver, with a much heightened sense of awareness and vulnerability. Which is a good thing.

Yes, I probably wouldnt be here today if I had a fast bike in my 20s...

But, come the revolution, I'd make everyone get their bike license before they can have a car license (with obvious exceptions allowed)

[S1KRR]

SpeckledJim said:

Ali2202 said:

shambolic said:

...
But my point was folk buying new and not wanting to use what they buy for themselves but selling it at a premium then artificially inflating price.

Slipper Flippers. Whatever next?

Trainer Gainers.

Selly Welly.

Clogger Floggers?

You should look at StockX dot com!


It's a massive market

[ArgonautX]

flemke said:

Apart from a higher rev limit, I don't know how the engines differed.
To get to 400 kph, that would be an increase in speed of 2.3% and would require in an increase in power of 7%.
The standard engine started out at about 630 bhp (technically they had to be at least 627 but in reality they all came in above that). Once an engine was fully run-in (after about 20,000 miles), it would produce 645-650. If a standard engine were set up with the factory-retrofitted high-flowing exhaust system, that would add another 15-20 bhp, which would raise the number up to IRO 665.
The engine in XP5 (the car that set the record at 391) had the mileage to be fully run-in but had the standard exhaust, so let's say that it produced 647. Add 7% to that and you'd need 692 bhp to reach 400 kph.
The LM engine's stated bhp was 680 (with the free-flowing exhaust, which was standard on it). Would you get to 692 after the LM engine was fully run-in? Maybe, although I presume that as an engine is tweaked to get closer to its theoretical maximum bhp output, the gains from running-in would diminish.
It would be close.
I think I have related this here before, but we once took to Bruntingthorpe my car and my friend's car - on which he had just spent a lot of money to have the LM engine and HDK fitted. Because of his car's increased drag (and slightly increased frontal area), my car was faster in a straight line. My friend was not happy!

I'm uncertain if they would raise the rev limit 1000 rpm without changing anything in the engine.
The LM engine came out roughly the same time S54 engine debuted, which also revved over 8000 rpm. I'm guessing it had to do something with that, maybe new VANOS that could reliably operate over 8000 rpm.

[flemke]

jhoneyball said:

flemke said:

I hear you. I decided a few years ago that I was too old ever to become a decent motorbike rider and thus it would be stupid for me to try.
Although in some ways even less practical than a bike, the Rocket is a good example of a car that can be enjoyed at speeds that are neither illegal nor anti-social.

Well I got my motorbike license in my late 40s (8 years ago now). Have done best part of 100k miles on my various bikes now.

You are not too old to learn. And it makes you a far better car driver, with a much heightened sense of awareness and vulnerability. Which is a good thing.

Yes, I probably wouldnt be here today if I had a fast bike in my 20s...

But, come the revolution, I'd make everyone get their bike license before they can have a car license (with obvious exceptions allowed)

There were additional reasons why I have chosen not to start riding motorbikes. As already I didn't have enough time to do the motoring things that I like to do, it seemed kind of crazy to start doing a new thing, further reducing the time available to do what I didn't have enough time to do.

I have a friend who is a senior Police Advanced Driving Instructor for both cars and bikes. He has been doing it for more than 30 years and his personal scores are among the best. He told me about a fellow bike instructor whose skill my friend admires, so this other fellow must be really good.
The fellow was out riding one day on an A- or B-road, making progress but speed within the limit, and started to go 'round a moderate left-hand bend in the road at maybe 55 mph. Suddenly his bike dropped out from under him. He and the bike slid straight ahead, into the opposite lane. In that lane coming towards them was a lorry, which did not have time to stop.
The bike ended up going under the lorry, catching on the suspension, being dragged for some distance and was destroyed.
The rider had slid at a slightly less straight trajectory. The rider's helmet hit the lorry's offside tyre and miraculously bounced off it towards the centre of the road, pushing the rider's body out of danger. Through pure luck, the rider was only somewhat and not seriously injured.
In trying to figure out why this vastly skilled rider had gone down for no apparent reason, it was discovered that sitting on the road surface had been a patch of soapy water that must have been flushed out of the sink of a passing caravan shortly before the biker arrived. From such trivial actions, people die.

I do a lot of cycling. Once on a lovely dry Sunday morning in London, I was riding at a reasonable pace along a curving, empty street. For no obvious reason, my bike instantaneously went out from underneath me. As I had had no time to prepare myself for the fall, I fell straight onto my face, the side of which was covered with a mixture of blood and crap picked up from the road surface. Although my face and my bike were damaged, it could have been a lot worse.
A pedestrian kindly stopped to help me. After I regained my wits (such as they were ), he helped me to try to ascertain why I had gone down.
We looked over the road surface and saw that I had just ridden along a bus stop. In the area near the rear of the stop the road had a layer of oil on it. This oil must have collected gradually, not necessarily from a single bus spewing out oil but more likely from the scores of buses that would have stopped at that spot every day, often leaving a few drops each behind them.

These are some of the reasons why I don't feel the need to start riding a motorbike.

[Esceptico]

flemke said:

There were additional reasons why I have chosen not to start riding motorbikes. As already I didn't have enough time to do the motoring things that I like to do, it seemed kind of crazy to start doing a new thing, further reducing the time available to do what I didn't have enough time to do.

I have a friend who is a senior Police Advanced Driving Instructor for both cars and bikes. He has been doing it for more than 30 years and his personal scores are among the best. He told me about a fellow bike instructor whose skill my friend admires, so this other fellow must be really good.
The fellow was out riding one day on an A- or B-road, making progress but speed within the limit, and started to go 'round a moderate left-hand bend in the road at maybe 55 mph. Suddenly his bike dropped out from under him. He and the bike slid straight ahead, into the opposite lane. In that lane coming towards them was a lorry, which did not have time to stop.
The bike ended up going under the lorry, catching on the suspension, being dragged for some distance and was destroyed.
The rider had slid at a slightly less straight trajectory. The rider's helmet hit the lorry's offside tyre and miraculously bounced off it towards the centre of the road, pushing the rider's body out of danger. Through pure luck, the rider was only somewhat and not seriously injured.
In trying to figure out why this vastly skilled rider had gone down for no apparent reason, it was discovered that sitting on the road surface had been a patch of soapy water that must have been flushed out of the sink of a passing caravan shortly before the biker arrived. From such trivial actions, people die.

I do a lot of cycling. Once on a lovely dry Sunday morning in London, I was riding at a reasonable pace along a curving, empty street. For no obvious reason, my bike instantaneously went out from underneath me. As I had had no time to prepare myself for the fall, I fell straight onto my face, the side of which was covered with a mixture of blood and crap picked up from the road surface. Although my face and my bike were damaged, it could have been a lot worse.
A pedestrian kindly stopped to help me. After I regained my wits (such as they were ), he helped me to try to ascertain why I had gone down.
We looked over the road surface and saw that I had just ridden along a bus stop. In the area near the rear of the stop the road had a layer of oil on it. This oil must have collected gradually, not necessarily from a single bus spewing out oil but more likely from the scores of buses that would have stopped at that spot every day, often leaving a few drops each behind them.

These are some of the reasons why I don't feel the need to start riding a motorbike.

If you weren’t a cyclist I would have more sympathy with your argument (I always feel much more exposed and less safe on my bicycle compared to my motorbike) :-)

Being on two wheels is inherently more risky than four and you can be hostage to fortune. On the other hand, the vast
majority of motorcyclists don’t get killed or maimed and overall I think motorcycling is only 30 times more dangerous than driving (how many people don’t drive because of the risks?)

I think the problem is that once you start biking it can be hard to give up. Much as I love cars the experience seems to pale compared to bikes. I would love to own your F1 but from prior experience I know that if it were sat in my garage it would still get overlooked for my bikes.

[ArgonautX]

flemke said:

I do a lot of cycling. Once on a lovely dry Sunday morning in London, I was riding at a reasonable pace along a curving, empty street. For no obvious reason, my bike instantaneously went out from underneath me. As I had had no time to prepare myself for the fall, I fell straight onto my face, the side of which was covered with a mixture of blood and crap picked up from the road surface. Although my face and my bike were damaged, it could have been a lot worse.
A pedestrian kindly stopped to help me. After I regained my wits (such as they were ), he helped me to try to ascertain why I had gone down.
We looked over the road surface and saw that I had just ridden along a bus stop. In the area near the rear of the stop the road had a layer of oil on it. This oil must have collected gradually, not necessarily from a single bus spewing out oil but more likely from the scores of buses that would have stopped at that spot every day, often leaving a few drops each behind them.

That's one of the reasons why I ride an MTB with a slightly rougher tread on the tires.

[flemke]

Esceptico said:

If you weren’t a cyclist I would have more sympathy with your argument (I always feel much more exposed and less safe on my bicycle compared to my motorbike) :-)

Being on two wheels is inherently more risky than four and you can be hostage to fortune. On the other hand, the vast
majority of motorcyclists don’t get killed or maimed and overall I think motorcycling is only 30 times more dangerous than driving (how many people don’t drive because of the risks?)

I think the problem is that once you start biking it can be hard to give up. Much as I love cars the experience seems to pale compared to bikes. I would love to own your F1 but from prior experience I know that if it were sat in my garage it would still get overlooked for my bikes.

Yes, there are some cyclists who are anti-social and inconsiderate, an embarrassment to proper cyclists. Then again, there are similar bikers. How often in town does one encounter an imbecile on a motorbike with an illegal silencer and the clown is revving it to 9,000?

So motorcycling is only 30 times more dangerous than driving, eh? That's a relief!

[flemke]

ArgonautX said:

flemke said:

I do a lot of cycling. Once on a lovely dry Sunday morning in London, I was riding at a reasonable pace along a curving, empty street. For no obvious reason, my bike instantaneously went out from underneath me. As I had had no time to prepare myself for the fall, I fell straight onto my face, the side of which was covered with a mixture of blood and crap picked up from the road surface. Although my face and my bike were damaged, it could have been a lot worse.
A pedestrian kindly stopped to help me. After I regained my wits (such as they were ), he helped me to try to ascertain why I had gone down.
We looked over the road surface and saw that I had just ridden along a bus stop. In the area near the rear of the stop the road had a layer of oil on it. This oil must have collected gradually, not necessarily from a single bus spewing out oil but more likely from the scores of buses that would have stopped at that spot every day, often leaving a few drops each behind them.

That's one of the reasons why I ride an MTB with a slightly rougher tread on the tires.

Various compromises are entailed in riding an MTB with block tread tyres on asphalt. Not sure how much more lateral grip they would provide on old, polished asphalt.

[ArgonautX]

flemke said:

Various compromises are entailed in riding an MTB with block tread tyres on asphalt. Not sure how much more lateral grip they would provide on old, polished asphalt.

I don't use block treads, just a little rougher road tread on a 2.00" tyre width. Originally, the bike came with 2.25" block treads.
In my wilder, younger days, I did frequently try to find limits of lateral grip on block treads and they are quite high, but you do ruin the tyres eventually.

[WestyCarl]

ArgonautX said:

flemke said:

I do a lot of cycling. Once on a lovely dry Sunday morning in London, I was riding at a reasonable pace along a curving, empty street. For no obvious reason, my bike instantaneously went out from underneath me. As I had had no time to prepare myself for the fall, I fell straight onto my face, the side of which was covered with a mixture of blood and crap picked up from the road surface. Although my face and my bike were damaged, it could have been a lot worse.
A pedestrian kindly stopped to help me. After I regained my wits (such as they were ), he helped me to try to ascertain why I had gone down.
We looked over the road surface and saw that I had just ridden along a bus stop. In the area near the rear of the stop the road had a layer of oil on it. This oil must have collected gradually, not necessarily from a single bus spewing out oil but more likely from the scores of buses that would have stopped at that spot every day, often leaving a few drops each behind them.

That's one of the reasons why I ride an MTB with a slightly rougher tread on the tires.

Being a lifelong MTB'r I've come off (instantly) on the road a few times all with some sort of spilt diesel / oil. No warning, just like ice.

When riding I now actually try to alter my route to avoid garages.

[Esceptico]

WestyCarl said:

Being a lifelong MTB'r I've come off (instantly) on the road a few times all with some sort of spilt diesel / oil. No warning, just like ice.

When riding I now actually try to alter my route to avoid garages.

My first proper motorbike crash was the same. Roundabout near a garage. I noticed a slick of diesel on the roundabout and avoided it but the exit was on a slight crown and I didn’t see the bit that got slopped in the middle of the road. Next minute I was involuntarily breakdancing and my bike was sliding towards oncoming traffic. That was 23 years ago and I’m still riding.

[Esceptico]

flemke said:

Yes, there are some cyclists who are anti-social and inconsiderate, an embarrassment to proper cyclists. Then again, there are similar bikers. How often in town does one encounter an imbecile on a motorbike with an illegal silencer and the clown is revving it to 9,000?

So motorcycling is only 30 times more dangerous than driving, eh? That's a relief!

Rereading my post it comes across as ambivalent. I meant I would understand your reluctance to take up motorbikes more if you weren’t a cyclist because cycling can be just as unsafe (or just as safe depending upon how you look at the statistics).

I do agree about antisocial members of both tribes. Don’t understand the revving in town - although sometimes in comes in useful when suicidal pedestrians are about to wander into the road and your path without looking. I find dipping the clutch and a quick blast to 10k generally gets their attention more quickly than the weedy horn. Unfortunately not an option when cycling. I just find it amazing that there are people who walk into the road without looking for oncoming traffic.

[flemke]

WestyCarl said:

ArgonautX said:

flemke said:

I do a lot of cycling. Once on a lovely dry Sunday morning in London, I was riding at a reasonable pace along a curving, empty street. For no obvious reason, my bike instantaneously went out from underneath me. As I had had no time to prepare myself for the fall, I fell straight onto my face, the side of which was covered with a mixture of blood and crap picked up from the road surface. Although my face and my bike were damaged, it could have been a lot worse.
A pedestrian kindly stopped to help me. After I regained my wits (such as they were ), he helped me to try to ascertain why I had gone down.
We looked over the road surface and saw that I had just ridden along a bus stop. In the area near the rear of the stop the road had a layer of oil on it. This oil must have collected gradually, not necessarily from a single bus spewing out oil but more likely from the scores of buses that would have stopped at that spot every day, often leaving a few drops each behind them.

That's one of the reasons why I ride an MTB with a slightly rougher tread on the tires.

Being a lifelong MTB'r I've come off (instantly) on the road a few times all with some sort of spilt diesel / oil. No warning, just like ice.

When riding I now actually try to alter my route to avoid garages.

I wonder if bus companies would have any liability if a cyclist/biker were seriously injured as a result of leaking diesel? One appreciates that it might be difficult to prove specific causality, but it would not be impossible in all cases.

[flemke]

Esceptico said:

flemke said:

Yes, there are some cyclists who are anti-social and inconsiderate, an embarrassment to proper cyclists. Then again, there are similar bikers. How often in town does one encounter an imbecile on a motorbike with an illegal silencer and the clown is revving it to 9,000?

So motorcycling is only 30 times more dangerous than driving, eh? That's a relief!

Rereading my post it comes across as ambivalent. I meant I would understand your reluctance to take up motorbikes more if you weren’t a cyclist because cycling can be just as unsafe (or just as safe depending upon how you look at the statistics).

I do agree about antisocial members of both tribes. Don’t understand the revving in town - although sometimes in comes in useful when suicidal pedestrians are about to wander into the road and your path without looking. I find dipping the clutch and a quick blast to 10k generally gets their attention more quickly than the weedy horn. Unfortunately not an option when cycling. I just find it amazing that there are people who walk into the road without looking for oncoming traffic.

Apart from riding on the same number of wheels, I don't see a lot of similarity between cycling and riding a motorbike. Yes, both imbue a sense of liberation relative to being enclosed within a car, but the cyclist goes much slower whilst feeling much closer to the immediate environment and of course the physical effort and health benefits are profoundly different.