Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)
Discussion
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
Church of Noise said:
Flemke, what are your thoughts on the T50s? https://www.topgear.com/car-news/first-look/gma-t5...
Not too sure if it'll be very usable on the road, if that article is a good indication...
On the other hand, given that it's quite customisable (e.g., GM mentioned that downforce could be reduced if the customer desires so)...
I'm not Flemke but considering it's a racing car then I'd say it won't be very useful on the road. Not too sure if it'll be very usable on the road, if that article is a good indication...
On the other hand, given that it's quite customisable (e.g., GM mentioned that downforce could be reduced if the customer desires so)...
Like the original F1, I think the T.50 is explicitly not a racing car.
TomW.SP said:
flemke said:
No. I normally do not put PPF on my cars, as it distorts the paint colour. In my opinion, stone chips are a part of the reality of driving, and PPF is sort-of the equivalent to never starting the engine because you want the exhaust tips to stay as-new, or putting plastic covers on the seats and steering wheel.
Hi Flemke, would you mind possibly sending me an email when you have a moment - tomw@salonpriveconcours.comWould you still like me to contact you, or would this be in relation to an event now past?
Joe911 said:
S1KRR said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5DxRZOB_2o
It's worth watching for 2 reasons
1) It's Flemkes F1 after he had it repaired following the minor bump on an Autobahn. And it looks stunning. I assume it's Mr F driving, but the windows are carefully blurred to preserve his anonymity.
2) The heir to the biscuit company thankfully doesn't feature at all!
I was driving, Flemke was busy selling an Island, or something like that.It's worth watching for 2 reasons
1) It's Flemkes F1 after he had it repaired following the minor bump on an Autobahn. And it looks stunning. I assume it's Mr F driving, but the windows are carefully blurred to preserve his anonymity.
2) The heir to the biscuit company thankfully doesn't feature at all!
It was a fun day - I was only told afterwards that the value of the car had increased 2 or 3 fold since the last time I'd driven it.
I still cringe thinking about THAT corner (at 34s) - what was I thinking! I was distracted by something and just f
ked it it up totally - no idea why Tim included it in the footage!I wonder whether I'll ever drive an F1 again - totally intoxicating sound.
flemke said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
Church of Noise said:
Flemke, what are your thoughts on the T50s? https://www.topgear.com/car-news/first-look/gma-t5...
Not too sure if it'll be very usable on the road, if that article is a good indication...
On the other hand, given that it's quite customisable (e.g., GM mentioned that downforce could be reduced if the customer desires so)...
I'm not Flemke but considering it's a racing car then I'd say it won't be very useful on the road. Not too sure if it'll be very usable on the road, if that article is a good indication...
On the other hand, given that it's quite customisable (e.g., GM mentioned that downforce could be reduced if the customer desires so)...
Like the original F1, I think the T.50 is explicitly not a racing car.
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
flemke said:
TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
Church of Noise said:
Flemke, what are your thoughts on the T50s? https://www.topgear.com/car-news/first-look/gma-t5...
Not too sure if it'll be very usable on the road, if that article is a good indication...
On the other hand, given that it's quite customisable (e.g., GM mentioned that downforce could be reduced if the customer desires so)...
I'm not Flemke but considering it's a racing car then I'd say it won't be very useful on the road. Not too sure if it'll be very usable on the road, if that article is a good indication...
On the other hand, given that it's quite customisable (e.g., GM mentioned that downforce could be reduced if the customer desires so)...
Like the original F1, I think the T.50 is explicitly not a racing car.
I am afraid that I have nothing worthwhile to add. It's close to being a modern racing car, modern racing cars on slicks are incredibly fast, especially when going around bends. The car will weigh more than, but have less power than, certain modern racing cars, with aero efficiency maybe in the same ballpark (Gordon has fewer restrictions on what he can do, but at the same time he doesn't have $100m/yr to spend perfecting the aero, so maybe that balances out).
Ok, let's geek out and dig in the movie I linked above. One thing that caught my eye were engine mounts, seen in the lower left of the pic below:
Pretty similar placement to what is on the F1, but much wider spacing, or possibly the same spacing with a smaller engine. For comparison:
(next to the blue coolant hose one can see a beefier engine mount that also holds some ancillary - oil pump?)
One thing I didn't realise is that F1's (and presumably t50's, as it seems to reheat a lot of the same approach) engine is attached from the front only with two of those famous asymmetrical compliance bushes, see the pic below:
I guess that there is also third mount on a gearbox and the whole assembly hangs off a bronzish bridge across the engine bay as shown below, but I am unable to verify this:
It's amazing to me that this rather flexible, by the looks of it, arrangement is supposed to contribute to the stiffness of the chassis and transfer suspension loads (although not quite - the rear dampers are mounted to the protrusions of the tub, not to the gearbox in F1). Of course, if GM's calculations showed that it is enough for a road car, then it is, period. However, do I recall correctly that later race cars had additional subframe to stiffen up the rear portion of the chassis?
Pretty similar placement to what is on the F1, but much wider spacing, or possibly the same spacing with a smaller engine. For comparison:
(next to the blue coolant hose one can see a beefier engine mount that also holds some ancillary - oil pump?)
One thing I didn't realise is that F1's (and presumably t50's, as it seems to reheat a lot of the same approach) engine is attached from the front only with two of those famous asymmetrical compliance bushes, see the pic below:
I guess that there is also third mount on a gearbox and the whole assembly hangs off a bronzish bridge across the engine bay as shown below, but I am unable to verify this:
It's amazing to me that this rather flexible, by the looks of it, arrangement is supposed to contribute to the stiffness of the chassis and transfer suspension loads (although not quite - the rear dampers are mounted to the protrusions of the tub, not to the gearbox in F1). Of course, if GM's calculations showed that it is enough for a road car, then it is, period. However, do I recall correctly that later race cars had additional subframe to stiffen up the rear portion of the chassis?
Edited by Nockenpaul on Saturday 17th October 11:50
Edited by Nockenpaul on Saturday 17th October 11:51
Nockenpaul said:
.... However, do I recall correctly that later race cars had additional subframe to stiffen up the rear portion of the chassis?
The rear lower arms were getting bent as a result of the car running the kerbs at race tracks , there was a reinforcement made on them. https://youtu.be/n8qyI7LmYrA?t=1085
S1KRR said:
The rear lower arms were getting bent as a result of the car running the kerbs at race tracks , there was a reinforcement made on them.
https://youtu.be/n8qyI7LmYrA?t=1085
That's correct, I flew out the repair kit of machined aluminium bars/glue with me on a last minute flighthttps://youtu.be/n8qyI7LmYrA?t=1085
Don't think the story of getting these parts out to Le mans has ever been told as it could have gone wrong in so many ways before the race had even started
remember the engine/trans mounts only need to support the weight of the assembly, no road loads are transferred through them. hence 3 point suspension the same as any other car.
this link may help. the bulkhead mounts are taken from single seater design in which the engine/trans is a stressed member so whilst the car is lighter, the loads are higher.
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...
this link may help. the bulkhead mounts are taken from single seater design in which the engine/trans is a stressed member so whilst the car is lighter, the loads are higher.
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...
S1KRR said:
The rear lower arms were getting bent as a result of the car running the kerbs at race tracks , there was a reinforcement made on them.
https://youtu.be/n8qyI7LmYrA?t=1085
Wow, cheers for the link, I was not aware of this documentary. Interesting that about the wishbones, but I thought I read someone (was it Peter Stevens?) mentioning reinforcement to the sprung, rather than unsprung, mass. Maybe I remebered wrong.https://youtu.be/n8qyI7LmYrA?t=1085
marine boy said:
That's correct, I flew out the repair kit of machined aluminium bars/glue with me on a last minute flight
Don't think the story of getting these parts out to Le mans has ever been told as it could have gone wrong in so many ways before the race had even started
Fascinating! Seriously, glue? Well, it makes sense when you think about it, but I bet nobody told Gordon Murray about the reinforcement as he would probably get a heat attack ;-).Don't think the story of getting these parts out to Le mans has ever been told as it could have gone wrong in so many ways before the race had even started
shirt said:
remember the engine/trans mounts only need to support the weight of the assembly, no road loads are transferred through them. hence 3 point suspension the same as any other car.
this link may help. the bulkhead mounts are taken from single seater design in which the engine/trans is a stressed member so whilst the car is lighter, the loads are higher.
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...
Cheers, thanks for the link. About no loads being transferred thru McLaren F1's engine/gearbox - well, I guess you are right about suspension loads, as the dampers mount to the chassis. Still, wishbones mount to the greabox. Don't the wishbones react braking torque, for instance?this link may help. the bulkhead mounts are taken from single seater design in which the engine/trans is a stressed member so whilst the car is lighter, the loads are higher.
https://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...
Nockenpaul said:
Ok, let's geek out and dig in the movie I linked above. One thing that caught my eye were engine mounts, seen in the lower left of the pic below:
Pretty similar placement to what is on the F1, but much wider spacing, or possibly the same spacing with a smaller engine. For comparison:
(next to the blue coolant hose one can see a beefier engine mount that also holds some ancillary - oil pump?)
One thing I didn't realise is that F1's (and presumably t50's, as it seems to reheat a lot of the same approach) engine is attached from the front only with two of those famous asymmetrical compliance bushes, see the pic below:
I guess that there is also third mount on a gearbox and the whole assembly hangs off a bronzish bridge across the engine bay as shown below, but I am unable to verify this:
It's amazing to me that this rather flexible, by the looks of it, arrangement is supposed to contribute to the stiffness of the chassis and transfer suspension loads (although not quite - the rear dampers are mounted to the protrusions of the tub, not to the gearbox in F1). Of course, if GM's calculations showed that it is enough for a road car, then it is, period. However, do I recall correctly that later race cars had additional subframe to stiffen up the rear portion of the chassis?
On the GTR, the torsional stiffness of the tub was augmented by the roll cage. IIRC, the mounts of the block to the firewall were solid as well.Pretty similar placement to what is on the F1, but much wider spacing, or possibly the same spacing with a smaller engine. For comparison:
(next to the blue coolant hose one can see a beefier engine mount that also holds some ancillary - oil pump?)
One thing I didn't realise is that F1's (and presumably t50's, as it seems to reheat a lot of the same approach) engine is attached from the front only with two of those famous asymmetrical compliance bushes, see the pic below:
I guess that there is also third mount on a gearbox and the whole assembly hangs off a bronzish bridge across the engine bay as shown below, but I am unable to verify this:
It's amazing to me that this rather flexible, by the looks of it, arrangement is supposed to contribute to the stiffness of the chassis and transfer suspension loads (although not quite - the rear dampers are mounted to the protrusions of the tub, not to the gearbox in F1). Of course, if GM's calculations showed that it is enough for a road car, then it is, period. However, do I recall correctly that later race cars had additional subframe to stiffen up the rear portion of the chassis?
The GTR's different suspension control arms were devised not for additional stiffness but to allow for camber adjustment.
flemke said:
On the GTR, the torsional stiffness of the tub was augmented by the roll cage. IIRC, the mounts of the block to the firewall were solid as well.
Thanks. I managed to find Peter Stevens interview (https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/december-2015/96/lunch-peter-stevens), and he says it the way I remembered it:Peter Stevens said:
The chassis stiffness behind the cockpit wasn’t as good as in front: the engine and gearbox were soft-mounted, so we made up a sub-frame at the back to stiffen it up.
By sub-frame, does he mean the solid mounts you mentioned?flemke said:
The GTR's different suspension control arms were devised not for additional stiffness but to allow for camber adjustment.
Yep, but as S1KRR and marine boy allude to, people running the car adjusted camber a lot more than they wanted when they managed to bend the arm during testing ;-)Nockenpaul said:
flemke said:
On the GTR, the torsional stiffness of the tub was augmented by the roll cage. IIRC, the mounts of the block to the firewall were solid as well.
Thanks. I managed to find Peter Stevens interview (https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/december-2015/96/lunch-peter-stevens), and he says it the way I remembered it:Peter Stevens said:
The chassis stiffness behind the cockpit wasn’t as good as in front: the engine and gearbox were soft-mounted, so we made up a sub-frame at the back to stiffen it up.
By sub-frame, does he mean the solid mounts you mentioned?flemke said:
The GTR's different suspension control arms were devised not for additional stiffness but to allow for camber adjustment.
Yep, but as S1KRR and marine boy allude to, people running the car adjusted camber a lot more than they wanted when they managed to bend the arm during testing ;-)
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff