RE: McLaren Senna - full details

[E65Ross]

fblm said:

E65Ross said:

And if you want a car that can be used on the road...

Then why do you care about every last 1/1000 of a second being shaved off its undisclosed lap times at the expense of an 'unfragmented' design?

Maybe you want the best road legal car which you can use on the road as well as being insanely quick on the track? Where do you draw the line? If this gets a 2 minute lap time somewhere, yet, another road car can do 2:05 for £100k and still be road legal, do you just go there? What about the £50k car that can get 2:10? What if you simply want the fastest road legal car?

I'm the wrong person to ask. Ask Flemke, or any of the other 499 who have ordered one.

[MDL111]

The Vambo said:

Goldenballs13 said:

Having now seen one in person, I must say the proportions are a lot nicer than they look in photos. Far from being drop dead gorgeous, but it really does look awesome in person.

Pistonheaders in jumping to angry conclusions before actually seeing a car in the metal shocker.

Once you lived through the knicker wetting tantrums of the E60 5 series, then watched the haters buy them you can predict the same reaction on every new car thread.

Still don’t think the E60 looks good outside or inside and we owned one so had a lot of time to get used to it

[MDL111]

E65Ross said:

fblm said:

E65Ross said:

And if you want a car that can be used on the road...

Then why do you care about every last 1/1000 of a second being shaved off its undisclosed lap times at the expense of an 'unfragmented' design?

Maybe you want the best road legal car which you can use on the road as well as being insanely quick on the track? Where do you draw the line? If this gets a 2 minute lap time somewhere, yet, another road car can do 2:05 for £100k and still be road legal, do you just go there? What about the £50k car that can get 2:10? What if you simply want the fastest road legal car?

I'm the wrong person to ask. Ask Flemke, or any of the other 499 who have ordered one.

I think if you buy this car you already own pretty cars, so this one just has a different role in your stable of cars. If I was rich, I would probably buy one just as I would have bought a Caparo T1 at the time. Not every car has to be pretty - having said that those windows in the doors are horrible - mine would definitely be black or dark blue, just as my GT2 RS or 720s if I were in a position to order one - makes them more acceptable imo

[anonymous-user]

The interior is as good as the exterior is bad. No cage needed is extraordinary for a track car of this performance. The one thing I can't get my head round is the stupid motorised flip up dashboard... why save grams elsewhere and add them back for such a worthless feature?

[E65Ross]

fblm said:

The interior is as good as the exterior is bad. No cage needed is extraordinary for a track car of this performance. The one thing I can't get my head round is the stupid motorised flip up dashboard... why save grams elsewhere and add them back for such a worthless feature?

Is that not just on the 720S? And yes, I agree.

[anonymous-user]

E65Ross said:

Is that not just on the 720S? And yes, I agree.

It looks like the same one as on the 720s yes.

[anonymous-user]

I dunno about this... Vulcan still has a special place in my heart.

[isaldiri]

BoxerF50 said:

Personally believe the Senna will age well. /

Really? I have to say the McSenna will be far more likely to age badly than well in the way the Enzo has aged imo very badly.

[anonymous-user]

BoxerF50 said:

Agree. Also I think the design will age well. F50 was not well received when it first came out and today it is an icon. Alternatively, I think the Jaguar XJR-15 is one of the best looking cars ever built but it doesn't get much love.

I agree with all that but I don't understand why the Senna will age well, I conceed I haven't seen it in the flesh. Iirc the slippery jag was about the same price as the Senna.... in 1990!

[jnoiles]

It is fking ugly though.

[BoxerF50]

fblm said:

BoxerF50 said:

Agree. Also I think the design will age well. F50 was not well received when it first came out and today it is an icon. Alternatively, I think the Jaguar XJR-15 is one of the best looking cars ever built but it doesn't get much love.

I agree with all that but I don't understand why the Senna will age well, I conceed I haven't seen it in the flesh. Iirc the slippery jag was about the same price as the Senna.... in 1990!

Tastes evolve and change over time hence why I think the Senna will age well. When McLaren originally launched the F1 in the 90's the goal was to sell 300 cars. They only managed 106. Today it is regarded as one of the greatest cars ever built.

[F1GTRUeno]

isaldiri said:

BoxerF50 said:

Personally believe the Senna will age well. /

Really? I have to say the McSenna will be far more likely to age badly than well in the way the Enzo has aged imo very badly.

Personally think the Enzo looks great now whereas I didn't in 2003.

All modern Ferrari's age well IMO. They tend to look terrible when launched and then become exceptionally good looking about ten years later.

[Rich_W]

BoxerF50] said:

Tastes evolve and change over time hence why I think the Senna will age well. When McLaren originally launched the F1 in the 90's the goal was to sell 300 cars. They only managed 106. Today it is regarded as one of the greatest cars ever built.

The fact the F1 is the greatest Hypercar ever made is nothing to do with the fact they only sold 106 of them.

There was a recession around the time. That's why they couldn't sell so many. The fact there are so few is what has made he values what they are.

As someone said above. Enzo has aged quite badly. Probably because LaFerrrari is a clear evolution of that shape. Which immediately dates the previous car.

F50 was unloved at launch, not for it's looks, but because fundamentally "it wasn't an F40" But even the F50s looks subscribe to a set of proportions that all mid engine super/hypercars should do.



Low front, cabin forward of the middle, engine cover decends slightly going back. Ending above the rear wheel arch. Rear 3/4 panels rise (moderately) to the tail. Tail should be the highest point of the bodywork Spoiler (if applicable at the back of the car)







Generally the nose should be as short as is sensible. Even the Koenigsegg which is a bit "chubby" has similarities in its side profile.



P1 has a bit of roman nose, but it's nowhere near as daft as the Senna





So it's "challenging" (at best) and that makes it far from likely to age well. Since visual proportions rule.

Not that I think it will be ste. It will be as fast as they say no doubt. But it's clearly not a classic design.


You can even see the same characteristics on a BMW M4. Short nose, tail higher than front wings.

[Leroy902]

When there's been THIS many pages, with people still being 'unsure' of the looks, you really know it looks awful...

In this case, awful would be putting it lightly. Its criminal.

[RacerMike]

Rich_W said:

The fact the F1 is the greatest Hypercar ever made is nothing to do with the fact they only sold 106 of them.

There was a recession around the time. That's why they couldn't sell so many. The fact there are so few is what has made he values what they are.

As someone said above. Enzo has aged quite badly. Probably because LaFerrrari is a clear evolution of that shape. Which immediately dates the previous car.

F50 was unloved at launch, not for it's looks, but because fundamentally "it wasn't an F40" But even the F50s looks subscribe to a set of proportions that all mid engine super/hypercars should do.

Spot on. I'd also add the simpler designs always age better than fussy ones (that's being kind) like the Senna. For example, the 12C which was generally critiqued as being 'too safe' at launch is actually one of the prettiest cars that McLaren have made. It just looks clean and functional, unlike the Senna whic tries way too hard to look 'functional'. Nearly all the cars you've quoted are fantastic in their simplicity.

The F1 in particular is actually so incredibly un-adventurous for a supercar. I remember that even at the time it was launched, it wasn't exactly breathtaking. It was almost like a 3 series with 600hp....functional, minimum wasted features, smallish wheels and driven by packaging. The Koenigsegg is the same. It's very typically Scandinavian. Simple, clean and functional.