RE: McLaren Senna on the road!
Discussion
hyphen said:
CraigyMc said:
Taking a crack at it:
The FXXK doesn't need ground clearance because it'll only run on tracks (so, it can run really low, and have a very effective aero floor/diffuser), or have to comply with type-approval regs (so, for example, they can make the splitter sharper than is legally possible on a road car). In addition, it can have suspension with very limited travel, and with spring rates that are high enough to cope with enormous loads (when at high speed and downforce is doing its thing). The FXX and FXXK are built around the idea of slicks with load ratings which road tyres wouldn't usually get near. They aren't built to cope with public roads.
The Senna attempts to get that sort of downforce without the "cannot use on the road" compromises, hence the *enormous* rear wing, active front diffuser and aero treatment. The Senna will have to sit on bespoke tyres, because to get some that will cope with the downforce, while cornering and braking, plus car weight from top speed, you need a load rating that would dictate "interesting" (read: practically solid) construction and compounds.
I think McLaren have gone extreme on the aerodynamic performance while still permitting type approval. I think the way the Senna looks is them making a point about how ruthless they've been about form following function rather than form dictating performance. I think they've let engineers design the car and stylists had access to it afterward.
The last time McLaren did the "engineer did it all first, then stylist had a play", the people involved were Gordon Murray and Peter Stevens. The result was the F1.
There, I had a go. I'm not sure I'm convinced by any of it, but I do think there may be some truth to the "McLaren making a point" bit of it.
Bearing in mind the price tag and the light weight of the wing, could they not have made it retractable? Even if it is some manually means of pulling it up and down to save on weight of electrical motors. The FXXK doesn't need ground clearance because it'll only run on tracks (so, it can run really low, and have a very effective aero floor/diffuser), or have to comply with type-approval regs (so, for example, they can make the splitter sharper than is legally possible on a road car). In addition, it can have suspension with very limited travel, and with spring rates that are high enough to cope with enormous loads (when at high speed and downforce is doing its thing). The FXX and FXXK are built around the idea of slicks with load ratings which road tyres wouldn't usually get near. They aren't built to cope with public roads.
The Senna attempts to get that sort of downforce without the "cannot use on the road" compromises, hence the *enormous* rear wing, active front diffuser and aero treatment. The Senna will have to sit on bespoke tyres, because to get some that will cope with the downforce, while cornering and braking, plus car weight from top speed, you need a load rating that would dictate "interesting" (read: practically solid) construction and compounds.
I think McLaren have gone extreme on the aerodynamic performance while still permitting type approval. I think the way the Senna looks is them making a point about how ruthless they've been about form following function rather than form dictating performance. I think they've let engineers design the car and stylists had access to it afterward.
The last time McLaren did the "engineer did it all first, then stylist had a play", the people involved were Gordon Murray and Peter Stevens. The result was the F1.
There, I had a go. I'm not sure I'm convinced by any of it, but I do think there may be some truth to the "McLaren making a point" bit of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
HighwayStar said:
Evo and the project manager discussing what, how and why...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
Thanks, looks much better in the 2 tone blue/black in the vid. The all black spy shots make it look its worst,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
Edited by hyphen on Tuesday 27th February 11:50
hyphen said:
HighwayStar said:
Evo and the project manager discussing what, how and why...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
Thanks, looks much better in the 2 tone blue/black in the vid. The Aall black spy shots make it look its worst,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
hyphen said:
HighwayStar said:
Evo and the project manager discussing what, how and why...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
Thanks, looks much better in the 2 tone blue/black in the vid. The all black spy shots make it look its worst,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
If you're one of the people that find the design challenging at best and abhorrent at worst, then different colour schemes and wheel design/size and viewing different lighting conditions and/or angle only mask the underlying tragedy.
If you're one of the people that revel in it's "design for purpose", and the focus applied to pure performance the opposite is true, you won't care what trim or detail is applied, it'll be fantastic regardless.
Quickmoose said:
hyphen said:
HighwayStar said:
Evo and the project manager discussing what, how and why...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
Thanks, looks much better in the 2 tone blue/black in the vid. The all black spy shots make it look its worst,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
If you're one of the people that find the design challenging at best and abhorrent at worst, then different colour schemes and wheel design/size and viewing different lighting conditions and/or angle only mask the underlying tragedy.
If you're one of the people that revel in it's "design for purpose", and the focus applied to pure performance the opposite is true, you won't care what trim or detail is applied, it'll be fantastic regardless.
Some people have changed their minds/seeing it differently from their initial thoughts. Does it matter that much? Does everything have to be picked apart?
E65Ross said:
Krikkit said:
Trailer + brand new Range Rover instead? Proper racing motorhome?
Even a slow single seater on slicks will be faster than this, and the pocket change inbetween leaves you a lot to be done. Hell, at this kind of money (iirc £2m?) you could buy a late-90s F1 car and run it comfortably with masses of change.
That said, it's more of a "why not" kind of car.
Exactly. Although I'm not sure a trailer and a new RR would be as fun on the roads as this?Even a slow single seater on slicks will be faster than this, and the pocket change inbetween leaves you a lot to be done. Hell, at this kind of money (iirc £2m?) you could buy a late-90s F1 car and run it comfortably with masses of change.
That said, it's more of a "why not" kind of car.
As for single seaters:
https://racecarsdirect.com/SubCategory/Index/16/si...
For 63,000 Euros a Formula Renault 3.5 which is faster than a lemans cars
https://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/78507/da...
For around 20-30k you could get a Formula Renault 2.0 which will still kick any road car based track car.
If you want a better shout, for less than the cost of a Senna you could have a Broadley T70 which is eligible for classic racing and as fast as the Senna. You could SVA it and run it on the road too.
Also for less money than the Senna you could get a GT3 car or an old GT1 car.
There isn't much point to this car other than to be able to park it next to somebody else's similar car and be able to know that your car is "faster" when somebody who isn't you is driving it somewhere you never go.....
Talksteer said:
E65Ross said:
Krikkit said:
Trailer + brand new Range Rover instead? Proper racing motorhome?
Even a slow single seater on slicks will be faster than this, and the pocket change inbetween leaves you a lot to be done. Hell, at this kind of money (iirc £2m?) you could buy a late-90s F1 car and run it comfortably with masses of change.
That said, it's more of a "why not" kind of car.
Exactly. Although I'm not sure a trailer and a new RR would be as fun on the roads as this?Even a slow single seater on slicks will be faster than this, and the pocket change inbetween leaves you a lot to be done. Hell, at this kind of money (iirc £2m?) you could buy a late-90s F1 car and run it comfortably with masses of change.
That said, it's more of a "why not" kind of car.
As for single seaters:
https://racecarsdirect.com/SubCategory/Index/16/si...
For 63,000 Euros a Formula Renault 3.5 which is faster than a lemans cars
https://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/78507/da...
For around 20-30k you could get a Formula Renault 2.0 which will still kick any road car based track car.
If you want a better shout, for less than the cost of a Senna you could have a Broadley T70 which is eligible for classic racing and as fast as the Senna. You could SVA it and run it on the road too.
Also for less money than the Senna you could get a GT3 car or an old GT1 car.
There isn't much point to this car other than to be able to park it next to somebody else's similar car and be able to know that your car is "faster" when somebody who isn't you is driving it somewhere you never go.....
Has this been discussed on PH yet?
Maldini35 said:
Talksteer said:
E65Ross said:
Krikkit said:
Trailer + brand new Range Rover instead? Proper racing motorhome?
Even a slow single seater on slicks will be faster than this, and the pocket change inbetween leaves you a lot to be done. Hell, at this kind of money (iirc £2m?) you could buy a late-90s F1 car and run it comfortably with masses of change.
That said, it's more of a "why not" kind of car.
Exactly. Although I'm not sure a trailer and a new RR would be as fun on the roads as this?Even a slow single seater on slicks will be faster than this, and the pocket change inbetween leaves you a lot to be done. Hell, at this kind of money (iirc £2m?) you could buy a late-90s F1 car and run it comfortably with masses of change.
That said, it's more of a "why not" kind of car.
As for single seaters:
https://racecarsdirect.com/SubCategory/Index/16/si...
For 63,000 Euros a Formula Renault 3.5 which is faster than a lemans cars
https://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/78507/da...
For around 20-30k you could get a Formula Renault 2.0 which will still kick any road car based track car.
If you want a better shout, for less than the cost of a Senna you could have a Broadley T70 which is eligible for classic racing and as fast as the Senna. You could SVA it and run it on the road too.
Also for less money than the Senna you could get a GT3 car or an old GT1 car.
There isn't much point to this car other than to be able to park it next to somebody else's similar car and be able to know that your car is "faster" when somebody who isn't you is driving it somewhere you never go.....
Has this been discussed on PH yet?
Why buy an rs6 when you could have a Caterham and an A6 estate? Maybe because someone wants both packages in 1?
Then there's the "this car is too fast for the owners to utilise on track" argument being spouted out by those now suggesting 2nd hand gt3 or gt1, or even formula cars
HighwayStar said:
hyphen said:
CraigyMc said:
Taking a crack at it:
The FXXK doesn't need ground clearance because it'll only run on tracks (so, it can run really low, and have a very effective aero floor/diffuser), or have to comply with type-approval regs (so, for example, they can make the splitter sharper than is legally possible on a road car). In addition, it can have suspension with very limited travel, and with spring rates that are high enough to cope with enormous loads (when at high speed and downforce is doing its thing). The FXX and FXXK are built around the idea of slicks with load ratings which road tyres wouldn't usually get near. They aren't built to cope with public roads.
The Senna attempts to get that sort of downforce without the "cannot use on the road" compromises, hence the *enormous* rear wing, active front diffuser and aero treatment. The Senna will have to sit on bespoke tyres, because to get some that will cope with the downforce, while cornering and braking, plus car weight from top speed, you need a load rating that would dictate "interesting" (read: practically solid) construction and compounds.
I think McLaren have gone extreme on the aerodynamic performance while still permitting type approval. I think the way the Senna looks is them making a point about how ruthless they've been about form following function rather than form dictating performance. I think they've let engineers design the car and stylists had access to it afterward.
The last time McLaren did the "engineer did it all first, then stylist had a play", the people involved were Gordon Murray and Peter Stevens. The result was the F1.
There, I had a go. I'm not sure I'm convinced by any of it, but I do think there may be some truth to the "McLaren making a point" bit of it.
Bearing in mind the price tag and the light weight of the wing, could they not have made it retractable? Even if it is some manually means of pulling it up and down to save on weight of electrical motors. The FXXK doesn't need ground clearance because it'll only run on tracks (so, it can run really low, and have a very effective aero floor/diffuser), or have to comply with type-approval regs (so, for example, they can make the splitter sharper than is legally possible on a road car). In addition, it can have suspension with very limited travel, and with spring rates that are high enough to cope with enormous loads (when at high speed and downforce is doing its thing). The FXX and FXXK are built around the idea of slicks with load ratings which road tyres wouldn't usually get near. They aren't built to cope with public roads.
The Senna attempts to get that sort of downforce without the "cannot use on the road" compromises, hence the *enormous* rear wing, active front diffuser and aero treatment. The Senna will have to sit on bespoke tyres, because to get some that will cope with the downforce, while cornering and braking, plus car weight from top speed, you need a load rating that would dictate "interesting" (read: practically solid) construction and compounds.
I think McLaren have gone extreme on the aerodynamic performance while still permitting type approval. I think the way the Senna looks is them making a point about how ruthless they've been about form following function rather than form dictating performance. I think they've let engineers design the car and stylists had access to it afterward.
The last time McLaren did the "engineer did it all first, then stylist had a play", the people involved were Gordon Murray and Peter Stevens. The result was the F1.
There, I had a go. I'm not sure I'm convinced by any of it, but I do think there may be some truth to the "McLaren making a point" bit of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf2gLZBxmXY
HighwayStar said:
Jeez... man, we get it. You. Don’t. Like (the look of and excuses for) it.
Does everything have to be picked apart?
Only the very worst and very best get this kind of attention.Does everything have to be picked apart?
If it were bland, it'd have been forgotten by now.
Back handed compliment.
At least I give reasoning to my thoughts, rather than drop in say it's s
t and move on.... without it, it'd just be people confirming each other on how amazing it is...to be challenged is a good thing... No reason to get overly upset
Edited by Quickmoose on Thursday 1st March 11:36
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSc9YzwaK98
Towards the end of this you can see the senna on track.
The rear wing in the "airbrake position" is hilariously big.
Towards the end of this you can see the senna on track.
The rear wing in the "airbrake position" is hilariously big.
E65Ross said:
Well, it's just smashed the lap record on the grand tour..... 4 seconds faster than the Huracan Performante around a pretty short lap!
That is bonkers. Probably worth a 6:30 or so around the ring!
Doesn't mean much to compare the two? Lamborghini could have made it uglier and faster.That is bonkers. Probably worth a 6:30 or so around the ring!
Edited by E65Ross on Friday 18th January 09:32
It's peers are the Aston/Redbull and mercedes hyper cars that are in progress I would say.
hyphen said:
E65Ross said:
Well, it's just smashed the lap record on the grand tour..... 4 seconds faster than the Huracan Performante around a pretty short lap!
That is bonkers. Probably worth a 6:30 or so around the ring!
Doesn't mean much to compare the two? Lamborghini could have made it uglier and faster.That is bonkers. Probably worth a 6:30 or so around the ring!
Edited by E65Ross on Friday 18th January 09:32
It's peers are the Aston/Redbull and mercedes hyper cars that are in progress I would say.
Is the Aventador SVJ a rival to the Huracan Performante? Its lap time around the 'Ring was compared to it....
E65Ross said:
Of course it makes sense to compare them. It gives us a benchmark as to its performance. Yes, its not a direct rival for the Huracan, but it was the fastest road legal car which had gone around that track, so what else can you say other than "it was much quicker than this....". You can't say "that's going to be quicker than the Red Bull" or "that'll be slower than the Red Bull" because it's not been around that track
Is the Aventador SVJ a rival to the Huracan Performante? Its lap time around the 'Ring was compared to it....
I read that as aventador sjw and somehow imagined a lambo with red hair and "those" glasses, ranting about privilege...Is the Aventador SVJ a rival to the Huracan Performante? Its lap time around the 'Ring was compared to it....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff