RE: McLaren Senna GTR: Geneva 2018

[Don Colione]

Another few thoughts/observations/questions...

The (race) exhaust is placed so close to the carbon side skirts; won't the heat end up melting or damaging them after some use, needing frequent expensive repair?

Also, I could be wrong... but the heat expelled by the side exhausts seems like it is being introduced right into or around the cooler diffuser airflow now. Wouldn't this result in massive turbulence at higher speeds, which is why it was placed higher up to begin with?

Finally, wouldn't the heated air from the exhaust, now generate an updraft of thermally heated air; right before the rear wheels, and rear undercarriage resulting in possible turbulent lift, especially at high speeds?

Lol... I'm sure McLaren will have that all cleared up for us in the next lengthy press release... I'm quite sure they are not done trying to shove this car down our throats just yet. This effort garnered my sympathy lol... they sure are trying ain't they....

[Maldini35]

RacerMike said:

It’s sitting right in front of you. The GTR! One minute McLaren claim the Senna is a no compromise track focussed road car where the primary function is donforce and performance, then the next week they release the GTR track version (which you would assume has now undergone some modification for the track to improve its performance on track....where apparently the road car was optimised for already) and they do some fundamental things to the key aerodynamic devices like moving the rear wing back, changing the location of the exhausts that allegedly are placed where they are on the road car as it’s a no compromise design to improve aero, and get rid of the door windows who’s purpose was for what exactly? Clearly not for track as the GTR would have them if that was the case...

You’re just not getting it are you?
What if you wanted to go racing with this car?
Unfortunately FIA regs and road legal requirements differ.

[Gad-Westy]

When I saw the first image I thought the front splitter and sides were part of the stage for a fleeting moment. Disgusting looking thing.

[E65Ross]

RacerMike said:

HighwayStar said:

RacerMike said:

Don Colione said:

I'm intrigued by the side exhaust...

Am I missing something?

The fact that everything about the Senna is a marketing exercise and all the talk of 'functional this' and 'functional that' is all just a way to sell the car? And the fact that everything about it is styled and has nothing to do with Aero? And that they got it so horribly wrong that loads of the original 'favoured' customers cancelled their allocations?

Evidence please...

It’s sitting right in front of you. The GTR! One minute McLaren claim the Senna is a no compromise track focussed road car where the primary function is donforce and performance, then the next week they release the GTR track version (which you would assume has now undergone some modification for the track to improve its performance on track....where apparently the road car was optimised for already) and they do some fundamental things to the key aerodynamic devices like moving the rear wing back, changing the location of the exhausts that allegedly are placed where they are on the road car as it’s a no compromise design to improve aero, and get rid of the door windows who’s purpose was for what exactly? Clearly not for track as the GTR would have them if that was the case...

I thin your problem is you don't seem to understand the difference between no compromise ROAD LEGAL track oriented car, and track car. 2 different things.

[anonymous-user]

jonosterman said:

I know that form follows function and all that, but it's still a crushing shame when the performance requirements generate something just so... ungainly.

The rear diffuser that looks like it's being slowly sh@ out of the back end, the dinner tray at the front added to all the same styling issues of the non-GTR model really don't do it any favours (IMHO, obviously).

It seems to be doubly a shame as I think it is possible to have something designed for speed that looks good too, e.g. the MP4/4, 812 Superfast, even something like the Aston Valkyrie looks better than this.

Is it not perhaps even a little bit feasible that they know more about it than you do?

[RacerMike]

Maldini35 said:

You’re just not getting it are you?
What if you wanted to go racing with this car?
Unfortunately FIA regs and road legal requirements differ.

I’m guessing you work at McLaren given comments like that. When are they announcing the intent to enter it in GTE? I guess it’s all part of the drip feed of PR...

I find it bizarre that even everyone at McLaren believes the marketing. Absolutely every car starts life in the modelling studio, and someone senior has stood with the designers and signed off what it looks like based on a COMPROMISE between form and function. It’s fine that sometimes, function is preferred over form, but there are other ways of getting the performance of the aero without it looking like ‘The Homer’....or having glass panels in the doors. Which are a clear example of function being secondary to form....

[HighwayStar]

RacerMike said:

Maldini35 said:

You’re just not getting it are you?
What if you wanted to go racing with this car?
Unfortunately FIA regs and road legal requirements differ.

I’m guessing you work at McLaren given comments like that. When are they announcing the intent to enter it in GTE? I guess it’s all part of the drip feed of PR...

I find it bizarre that even everyone at McLaren believes the marketing. Absolutely every car starts life in the modelling studio, and someone senior has stood with the designers and signed off what it looks like based on a COMPROMISE between form and function. It’s fine that sometimes, function is preferred over form, but there are other ways of getting the performance of the aero without it looking like ‘The Homer’....or having glass panels in the doors. Which are a clear example of function being secondary to form....

You're a strange fellow... Anyone who likes, defends or puts forward an opposing view to yours you are guessing works for McLaren. Why?
We know you don't work there, you have no actual idea how McLaren work.

Your own view is put forward as fact. And you are pushing that view. McLaren have built it, they're selling it. You don't like the car, McLaren's philosophy and believe it's all marketing. That's fine and you are fully entitled the thing that what your are saying is not fact. You don't like the car, you want everyone to know it and think the same as you like you uncovered some great conspiracy...now that's bizarre.
Yes, it's not the prettiest car but there are people who appreciate the technical side, the single minded pursuit of performance and are willing to pay for it. You don't and wouldn't. We get it.

[RacerMike]

HighwayStar said:

You're a strange fellow... Anyone who likes, defends or puts forward an opposing view to yours you are guessing works for McLaren. Why?
We know you don't work there, you have no actual idea how McLaren work.

Your own view is put forward as fact. And you are pushing that view. McLaren have built it, they're selling it. You don't like the car, McLaren's philosophy and believe it's all marketing. That's fine and you are fully entitled the thing that what your are saying is not fact. You don't like the car, you want everyone to know it and think the same as you like you uncovered some great conspiracy...now that's bizarre.
Yes, it's not the prettiest car but there are people who appreciate the technical side, the single minded pursuit of performance and are willing to pay for it. You don't and wouldn't. We get it.

I think you’re blowing that a little out of proportion.....and whilst I’m purposefully trying to provoke a response (trolling if you really must call it that), it’s only to see what that response is.

Generally on PH, there are some people who will reply with some very valid explanations to people who challenge things, which is better than the usual ‘ooooh it looks cool’ or ‘why is this this not £15k with a manual gearbox and why does it weight more than 1000kg’ in my opinion. That’s what I’d like to see. What isn’t so nice to see is what is becoming the default response of ‘what an odd fellow’ or ‘you must be a very strange person’ to anyone who disagrees with a majority view. You can hardly call my posts particularly controversial. It’s a tactic the press and social media use increasingly these days to undermine people’s position in an argument when they don’t have a response to it.

Rather than resorting to name calling, either just ignore my slightly provocative post or engage in some debate about it. My objection comes from a good place, and one based on my own experiences working in the automotive industry. Everything is driven by marketing and design, but it’s like that for good reason. It just irks me somewhat that the same people on here who will deride a manufacturer for being ‘yawn another load of PR managed bs’ fall for the same stuff from McLaren hook line and sinker just because they make the right noises!

[Quickmoose]

RacerMike said:

Maldini35 said:

You’re just not getting it are you?
What if you wanted to go racing with this car?
Unfortunately FIA regs and road legal requirements differ.

I’m guessing you work at McLaren given comments like that. When are they announcing the intent to enter it in GTE? I guess it’s all part of the drip feed of PR...

I find it bizarre that even everyone at McLaren believes the marketing. Absolutely every car starts life in the modelling studio, and someone senior has stood with the designers and signed off what it looks like based on a COMPROMISE between form and function. It’s fine that sometimes, function is preferred over form, but there are other ways of getting the performance of the aero without it looking like ‘The Homer’....or having glass panels in the doors. Which are a clear example of function being secondary to form....

exactly..

The Senna, was/is a no compromise road legal track car..... which is, if you consider the two functions admitting that both are now compromised....which does not in any way justify brutal ugly design..(Mark Reichman at Aston "Adrian Newey had the underneath to work the aero and do what he does, I had the less important upper surfaces to both manipulate the air and create beautiful simply lines and form "..or something).

The Senna GTR is McLarens no rules, lets go, this is it, track ONLY car.... no compromise for the public highway.... but it's still goping? the lack of compromise has seen some changes...the wing is further back yey...the exhausts have moved woo...all of which is odd because when Aston recently unveiled their track only uncompromised version (admittedly at 85%), Mark Reichman said.....well he said the roughly paraphrased quote above...

Point is, road legal track compromise or track only hang-the-rules all out madness, McLaren = dreadful design, Aston = (comparatively) gorgeous...
So it can be done, and "brutal" excuses now and always did sound like BS...panic station development, car collector subsidised BS.

Also GT3RS, Performante, 488 Pista, all road legal track focused compromises that look superb.
911 WEC GTE, 488 WEC GTE, both look favourable too...
You know why that is? because they started somewhere good...

Who said "if it looks fast it probably is fast"?

yeah yeah I know, I don't half go on.
boils my p1ss when marques of this calibre make toss like this.
If the Senna were made by a start up Chinese dream factory, it'd be laughed out of the show...

[Gad-Westy]

This probably sounds like a loaded question but isn't. I'm genuinely curious. What is the appeal of something like this (or a Ferrari FXX type thing or whatever other equivalents that are out there) vs. buying a genuine ex-racer? I'm assuming at this price point, that is a reall choice that can be made. Is it just the support and events that presumably come packaged with this? It's just that I'm imagining an ex-LM car or similar would be more appealing to me and have interesting history too.

[E65Ross]

Those moaning about the Senna saying it's compromised etc and thus pointless, do you say the same RE Porsche GT3RS etc? Look pretty silly as a road car, not as quick as a proper track car....principle is the same, no?

Either way, I'm glad cars like this exist

I feel sad that people like you get so irate about it simply because you can't understand the difference between a track-oriented road legal car, and a track car which isn't road legal.

[Maldini35]

RacerMike said:

I’m guessing you work at McLaren given comments like that. When are they announcing the intent to enter it in GTE? I guess it’s all part of the drip feed of PR...

I find it bizarre that even everyone at McLaren believes the marketing. Absolutely every car starts life in the modelling studio, and someone senior has stood with the designers and signed off what it looks like based on a COMPROMISE between form and function. It’s fine that sometimes, function is preferred over form, but there are other ways of getting the performance of the aero without it looking like ‘The Homer’....or having glass panels in the doors. Which are a clear example of function being secondary to form....

For the record I don’t work for McLaren.
You seemed frustrated that the road car and track car had some differences but it should be pretty obvious why.

The car is not a blank sheet design, it has to use some existing elements eg the tub, windscreen, engine etc. That will dictate the design to a degree and also explains why it’s a third of the price of a Valkyrie. Given the building blocks the aero performance is spectacular.

It has been said many times but your opinion of the design is not absolute. It is subjective.
When you argue that they could have achieved the aero targets with a different design I remain sceptical. How can you possibly know that?

Glass in the doors? It’s an option. The Senna theme car has carbon lower panels instead.
If they can offer lower glass panels to add to the experience for some customers then why not?

Your claim about the marketing was bizarre given you work for JLR - probably the most marketing driven automotive company in the world. When they’re not driving cars over the Thames on wires (?!!?) they are launching almost identical cars with different names and vastly different price points - all justified by dubious marketing.

If you believed all the JLR marketing regarding aluminium construction you’d probably expect the cars to be lighter than their steel competitors which sadly doesn’t seem to be the case.
I’m not knocking JLR cars ( I’m a fan of Land Rover past and present) but some of their marketing is toe-curling.

[anniesdad]

The manner in which the flattish rear 3/4 wing on the GTR tapers out at the back and meets with the crease line coming from the rear wheelarch is actually quite handsome. Moving the wing rearwards and elongating the rear has made such a difference to the cohesiveness of the design. If the splitter and diffuser were a bit shorter, it would look very very good. That said of course those 2 things are that length for a reason so it is what it is. Race car first, good looker second.

I still can't get my head around the "standard" Senna though. Maybe it's one to very much see in the flesh?

[CaptainRAVE]

My goodness that is ugly. People can surely only be buying it as an investment.

[HighwayStar]

RacerMike said:

HighwayStar said:

You're a strange fellow... Anyone who likes, defends or puts forward an opposing view to yours you are guessing works for McLaren. Why?
We know you don't work there, you have no actual idea how McLaren work.

Your own view is put forward as fact. And you are pushing that view. McLaren have built it, they're selling it. You don't like the car, McLaren's philosophy and believe it's all marketing. That's fine and you are fully entitled the thing that what your are saying is not fact. You don't like the car, you want everyone to know it and think the same as you like you uncovered some great conspiracy...now that's bizarre.
Yes, it's not the prettiest car but there are people who appreciate the technical side, the single minded pursuit of performance and are willing to pay for it. You don't and wouldn't. We get it.

I think you’re blowing that a little out of proportion.....and whilst I’m purposefully trying to provoke a response (trolling if you really must call it that), it’s only to see what that response is.

Generally on PH, there are some people who will reply with some very valid explanations to people who challenge things, which is better than the usual ‘ooooh it looks cool’ or ‘why is this this not £15k with a manual gearbox and why does it weight more than 1000kg’ in my opinion. That’s what I’d like to see. What isn’t so nice to see is what is becoming the default response of ‘what an odd fellow’ or ‘you must be a very strange person’ to anyone who disagrees with a majority view. You can hardly call my posts particularly controversial. It’s a tactic the press and social media use increasingly these days to undermine people’s position in an argument when they don’t have a response to it.

Rather than resorting to name calling, either just ignore my slightly provocative post or engage in some debate about it. My objection comes from a good place, and one based on my own experiences working in the automotive industry. Everything is driven by marketing and design, but it’s like that for good reason. It just irks me somewhat that the same people on here who will deride a manufacturer for being ‘yawn another load of PR managed bs’ fall for the same stuff from McLaren hook line and sinker just because they make the right noises!

Name calling... please! Nothing of the sort. Your purposefully provoke a response. Don't object when you get responses you don't like.
Thanks for explaining that you work in the automotive industry.

[p1stonhead]

Ugly as sin, but who here wouldnt give their left nut to have one or even have a go in one?

[soad]

Garralda said:

I think that rear diffuser needs to be longer!

[anonymous-user]

anniesdad said:

The manner in which the flattish rear 3/4 wing on the GTR tapers out at the back and meets with the crease line coming from the rear wheelarch is actually quite handsome. Moving the wing rearwards and elongating the rear has made such a difference to the cohesiveness of the design. If the splitter and diffuser were a bit shorter, it would look very very good. That said of course those 2 things are that length for a reason so it is what it is. Race car first, good looker second.

I still can't get my head around the "standard" Senna though. Maybe it's one to very much see in the flesh?

Interesting observation about the rear wing and I agree although I'm not convinced it would ever look ''very, very good''. It's a race car so can look as ugly as it needs but the fact that it's better looking than the road car suggests to me that the road car could have also looked better without losing any of its performance.

[Steve12NG]

p1stonhead said:

Ugly as sin, but who here wouldnt give their left nut to have one or even have a go in one?

Ignoring the financial side of the equation (ie. that the flippers who end up with these will probably make a lot of money), I certainly wouldn’t give my left nut to have one.
Frankly, I’d be embarrassed to be seen within twenty feet of it.

As someone said, if some no name Chinese company had come up with an identical car, there wouldn’t be a single positive comment. It would be laughed out of existence.

I don’t care how fast it supposedly is, it is eye-wateringly and irredeemably ugly in my opinion.
Just straight out horrific.

[p1stonhead]

Steve12NG said:

p1stonhead said:

Ugly as sin, but who here wouldnt give their left nut to have one or even have a go in one?

Ignoring the financial side of the equation (ie. that the flippers who end up with these will probably make a lot of money), I certainly wouldn’t give my left nut to have one.
Frankly, I’d be embarrassed to be seen within twenty feet of it.

As someone said, if some no name Chinese company had come up with an identical car, there wouldn’t be a single positive comment. It would be laughed out of existence.

I don’t care how fast it supposedly is, it is eye-wateringly and irredeemably ugly in my opinion.
Just straight out horrific.

You cant see it when you are inside it on a track you know.

I cant fathom someone who wouldnt want a go in one. The fact you would be too embarrassed to be seen in one says more about you than the car.

Bizarre.

Edited by p1stonhead on Wednesday 7th March 14:44