RE: McLaren BP23 to 'exceed' 243mph
Discussion
dvshannow said:
The f1 was a masterpiece of design, an elegant and well engineered car designed by one of the industries true talents
This car for me has none of those things, sure it might have a super high tech hybrid drive system and dynamic aero but i do not think it has much of a soul
May be getting old. Maybe the car is getting old. But it all feels less interesting now.
Why not keep your opinion on hold until the car is actually done...This car for me has none of those things, sure it might have a super high tech hybrid drive system and dynamic aero but i do not think it has much of a soul
May be getting old. Maybe the car is getting old. But it all feels less interesting now.
fblm said:
Sadly I think McLaren are more interested in sucking up to the trust fund brats and Instagram clowns these days...
It's bizarre!DeejRC said:
4. Ppl forget the F1 was a difficult bugger to sell and Macca just about got away without getting their fingers burned off. The company can’t afford another f
k up. Even more so considering the current status of their main PR arm...
So I’m obviously missing something.
Yes, the fact there was a recession around the time. Nothing to do with the car really. k up. Even more so considering the current status of their main PR arm...So I’m obviously missing something.
Re BP23
Id like to see it faster than EVERY other car (Chiron etc) They deserve to be top of the tree.
But more that that I just want it to look beautiful!
I want them to bring in a PROPER set of visual designers. The likes of Ian Callum (Jag) Peter Stevens (F1 etc) Marek Reichmann (Aston Rapide) Look at stuff like Quattroporte etc
Rich_W said:
Yes, the fact there was a recession around the time. Nothing to do with the car really.
Re BP23
Id like to see it faster than EVERY other car (Chiron etc) They deserve to be top of the tree.
But more that that I just want it to look beautiful!
I want them to bring in a PROPER set of visual designers. The likes of Ian Callum (Jag) Peter Stevens (F1 etc) Marek Reichmann (Aston Rapide) Look at stuff like Quattroporte etc
I agree - McLaren have done the function over form car with the Senna - fine - but the BP23 needs to be beautiful if it’s billed as a ‘hyper tourer’. Re BP23
Id like to see it faster than EVERY other car (Chiron etc) They deserve to be top of the tree.
But more that that I just want it to look beautiful!
I want them to bring in a PROPER set of visual designers. The likes of Ian Callum (Jag) Peter Stevens (F1 etc) Marek Reichmann (Aston Rapide) Look at stuff like Quattroporte etc
Rich_W said:
Yes, the fact there was a recession around the time. Nothing to do with the car really.
Re BP23
Id like to see it faster than EVERY other car (Chiron etc) They deserve to be top of the tree.
But more that that I just want it to look beautiful!
I want them to bring in a PROPER set of visual designers. The likes of Ian Callum (Jag) Peter Stevens (F1 etc) Marek Reichmann (Aston Rapide) Look at stuff like Quattroporte etc
What is the reasoning for this?Re BP23
Id like to see it faster than EVERY other car (Chiron etc) They deserve to be top of the tree.
But more that that I just want it to look beautiful!
I want them to bring in a PROPER set of visual designers. The likes of Ian Callum (Jag) Peter Stevens (F1 etc) Marek Reichmann (Aston Rapide) Look at stuff like Quattroporte etc
kellydk said:
It is amazing that the original F1 had 630bhp (odd) and could hit 240mph but to exceed that speed modern cars need in excess of 1000bhp. There is something to be said for less weight and less electronics.
Yes, because mass and electronic complexity are the fundamental limitations to top speed...... NOT!The reason a modern hypercar needs more power is a larger frontal area, and a higher drag co-efficient due to much more aerodynamic downforce producing features, that also create drag!
Added to which, a lot of modern hypercar are limited in terms of top speed so they can run tyres that work at lower speeds. Once over 200mph, frankly, it's irrelevant, as you need a 3 mile+ test track to go any faster anyway, so that's not going to affect many customers
treetops said:
Murphy16 said:
Yawn. Call me pessimistic but it's hard to get excited by a car I'll never own, a car that has already sold out, a car faster than our roads can accommodate. A car that will probably sit in a climate controlled bubble in the middle east, appearing only for instagram shots with a lion cub draped over it. Maybe some of the tech will trickle down into some second hand sports car in the future that i might own, but it's hard to get excited about that.
This ^^Just not interested at all.
No doubt in the next 2 or 3 years there will be the first road car, (probably a tweaked Chiron) which might get close to 300mph.
All well and good but I've lost interest, its a pointless race for top speed and bhp boasting rights. Can't use it on the road, too powerful for any twisty track & one or two cars are so much of a handful they can only achieve their top speed on one of the world's longest airfields.
I must be getting old!! Give me a Caterham Superlight and a B-road any day.
hyphen said:
What is the reasoning for this?
There's no point in McLaren launching a hyper GT that isn't as fast as the competition that's been around for 18months (Chiron) If they are serious about being the best, they need to knock it out of the park. To me it needs to be faster than Chiron, be utterly luxurious like the Bugatti or even a S Class AND crucially handle better than bothThink something like a SLR+++ Super fast, easy to drive across Europe and a nice place to sit.
I understand the lack of interest in top speed, but it matters for bragging rights, people who buy these cars want that. Remember that you can get a Brabus Rocket EV12 for half a million that does 230mph and can carry 4 (and luggage) across Europe. These are the cars you're trying to take sales from.
Max_Torque said:
kellydk said:
It is amazing that the original F1 had 630bhp (odd) and could hit 240mph but to exceed that speed modern cars need in excess of 1000bhp. There is something to be said for less weight and less electronics.
Yes, because mass and electronic complexity are the fundamental limitations to top speed...... NOT!The reason a modern hypercar needs more power is a larger frontal area, and a higher drag co-efficient due to much more aerodynamic downforce producing features, that also create drag!
Added to which, a lot of modern hypercar are limited in terms of top speed so they can run tyres that work at lower speeds. Once over 200mph, frankly, it's irrelevant, as you need a 3 mile+ test track to go any faster anyway, so that's not going to affect many customers
McLaren’s three-seat successor to its F1 supercar aims to at least match that legend’s top speed from 20 years ago. The floor is set: 243 mph.
The as-yet-unnamed BP23, a gas-electric hybrid “Hyper-GT” touted to be both “the fastest-ever and the most luxurious McLaren,” will be able to “exceed 243 mph,” the company said. It will be the next model in McLaren’s Ultimate Series after the 2019 McLaren Senna, with a reveal set before the end of the year.
That “fastest-ever” claim may wear an asterisk, depending on whether McLaren uses a modified, one-off version to set the fastest possible speed. There’s precedent, since the F1’s reign as the world’s fastest production car—a title it held from 1998 until the 253-mph Bugatti Veyron broke it in 2005, with us behind the wheel—isn’t without disclaimers.
When we tested one of the first F1s in our August 1994 issue, the then-$815,000 supercar pegged its 7500-rpm rev limiter at 221 mph. A year prior, using an earlier prototype, McLaren clocked 231 mph at Italy’s Nardo circuit. Then in 1998, McLaren went all-out at Volkswagen’s Ehra-Lessien test track, removing the rev limiter and fitting taller gears for an insane 240.1-mph official record, as averaged from runs in opposite directions. The best run on the 5.4-mile straight—242.956 mph—is what McLaren is gunning for with the BP23, even though stock F1s couldn’t have approached that speed on the same track.
brightbluesmurf said:
Yeah a £70K Porsche 911 competitor would be great. Even if they ditched carbon for alloy.
The problem with entering a cheaper segment of the market is smaller margins and production capacity.McLaren don't have surplus production capacity so would need a new factory to build the cars which would cost money.
The cars would have a smaller margin so they would have to build a lot of them.
The more they have to build the bigger the factory would have to be.
The bigger the factory required, the higher the volume, etc.
Porsche are on a completely different scale to McLaren (or Ferrari).
McLaren make about 3,000 cars a year.
Ferrari make about 8,000 cars a year.
Porsche make 30,000 911s a year and around 250,000 cars a year in total.
The economies of scale would make it very hard for McLaren to profitably produce a car in that segment.
Rich_W said:
There's no point in McLaren launching a hyper GT that isn't as fast as the competition that's been around for 18months (Chiron) If they are serious about being the best, they need to knock it out of the park. To me it needs to be faster than Chiron, be utterly luxurious like the Bugatti or even a S Class AND crucially handle better than both
Think something like a SLR+++ Super fast, easy to drive across Europe and a nice place to sit.
I understand the lack of interest in top speed, but it matters for bragging rights, people who buy these cars want that. Remember that you can get a Brabus Rocket EV12 for half a million that does 230mph and can carry 4 (and luggage) across Europe. These are the cars you're trying to take sales from.
Is this true or based on assumption? I guess it must be partly true from the amount of uptake on cars like this but I ask because I find it amazing that people who have been successful enough in their lives to spend this kind of money on cars care so much about irrelevancies. The whole Top Trumps thing seems so childish.Think something like a SLR+++ Super fast, easy to drive across Europe and a nice place to sit.
I understand the lack of interest in top speed, but it matters for bragging rights, people who buy these cars want that. Remember that you can get a Brabus Rocket EV12 for half a million that does 230mph and can carry 4 (and luggage) across Europe. These are the cars you're trying to take sales from.
This limited production hyper car business must be some industry to be in at the moment. New model after new model being churned out by various manufacturers. All getting on for £1m or more, all pre-sold in their hundreds before we've even seen them. I still remember back to the early 90's when the XJ220, McLaren F1, EB110 could barely be given away. Totally different world now but somehow lacks the mystique this sort of car used to command. Or maybe I'm old!
ralphrj said:
brightbluesmurf said:
Yeah a £70K Porsche 911 competitor would be great. Even if they ditched carbon for alloy.
The problem with entering a cheaper segment of the market is smaller margins and production capacity.McLaren don't have surplus production capacity so would need a new factory to build the cars which would cost money.
The cars would have a smaller margin so they would have to build a lot of them.
The more they have to build the bigger the factory would have to be.
The bigger the factory required, the higher the volume, etc.
Porsche are on a completely different scale to McLaren (or Ferrari).
McLaren make about 3,000 cars a year.
Ferrari make about 8,000 cars a year.
Porsche make 30,000 911s a year and around 250,000 cars a year in total.
The economies of scale would make it very hard for McLaren to profitably produce a car in that segment.
ralphrj said:
The problem with entering a cheaper segment of the market is smaller margins and production capacity.
McLaren don't have surplus production capacity so would need a new factory to build the cars which would cost money.
The cars would have a smaller margin so they would have to build a lot of them.
The more they have to build the bigger the factory would have to be.
The bigger the factory required, the higher the volume, etc.
Porsche are on a completely different scale to McLaren (or Ferrari).
McLaren make about 3,000 cars a year.
Ferrari make about 8,000 cars a year.
Porsche make 30,000 911s a year and around 250,000 cars a year in total.
The economies of scale would make it very hard for McLaren to profitably produce a car in that segment.
But they could outsource it. Jag's new e-pace is being built by Magna Steyr who have also undertaken production for the likes of Aston Martin and Merc SLS AMG in the past. At a cheaper price point I don't think buyers would care where it was built.McLaren don't have surplus production capacity so would need a new factory to build the cars which would cost money.
The cars would have a smaller margin so they would have to build a lot of them.
The more they have to build the bigger the factory would have to be.
The bigger the factory required, the higher the volume, etc.
Porsche are on a completely different scale to McLaren (or Ferrari).
McLaren make about 3,000 cars a year.
Ferrari make about 8,000 cars a year.
Porsche make 30,000 911s a year and around 250,000 cars a year in total.
The economies of scale would make it very hard for McLaren to profitably produce a car in that segment.
I think it is more about brand positioning, do McLaren want to a be a Porsche/Lotus (sports cars) Or do they want to be a Ferrari /Lambo(supercars)
The supercar manufacturers don't make cheap models to compete with base spec 911, they want to be exclusive.
The earlier Aston Vantage were cheaper iirc, but the new Vantage starts at £120k so even they no longer want to compete with Porsche/Lotus level brands directly.
Edited by hyphen on Monday 12th March 09:52
hyphen said:
But they could outsource it. Jag's new e-pace is being built by Magna Steyr who have also undertaken production for the likes of Aston Martin and Merc SLS AMG in the past. At a cheaper price point I don't think buyers would care where it was built.
I think it is more about brand positioning, do McLaren want to a be a Porsche (sports cars)? Or do they want to be a Ferrari (supercars)
The supercar manufacturers don't make cheap models to compete with base spec 911, they want to be exclusive.
The earlier Aston Vantage were cheaper iirc, but the new Vantage starts at £120k so even they no longer want to compete with Porsche/Lotus level brand directly.
Fair points, 3rd party assembly is good way of adding a model line without having to invest in a new factory. Porsche used Valmet in Finland for the assembly of the 987 Boxster/981 Cayman.I think it is more about brand positioning, do McLaren want to a be a Porsche (sports cars)? Or do they want to be a Ferrari (supercars)
The supercar manufacturers don't make cheap models to compete with base spec 911, they want to be exclusive.
The earlier Aston Vantage were cheaper iirc, but the new Vantage starts at £120k so even they no longer want to compete with Porsche/Lotus level brand directly.
Edited by hyphen on Monday 12th March 09:50
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff