Lots of 675LTs for sale..
Discussion
Boshly said:
I'd like to join the spider/coupe track car debate, the other argument has become a tad monotonous now I'm afraid. Surely the only reason coupes became better track cars was because as has been alluded to and mentioned, is the greater weight and lack of rigidity still, of a convertible version of a coupe.
However, surely the original ethos of a 'racing' motor vehicle was to sit in/on a car and go as fast as possible and the evolution of the coupe was simply to provide a roof to protect from the elements, possibly to and from the track?
And thus now we have 'protection required' dictating the different options that come into play with the weight gain and lack of rigidity; and due to the carbon tub only the slight weight gain being the price a Maclaren owner has to pay between the two versions of the car.
I would therefore be daring enough to suggest that the most effective and desirable car to drive fast round a track would be one open to the elements where the driver can better see/feel/hear the surroundings and the performance of his own steed. The lack of any roof at all would also make the car lighter still.
The folding roof option, and even more so the coupe, simply panders to the softies who want a bit of protection from the precipitation that may or may not spoil their hair
I therefore suggest the better and purer track car will be the spider
By "spider" do you mean "roadster", with no top at all?However, surely the original ethos of a 'racing' motor vehicle was to sit in/on a car and go as fast as possible and the evolution of the coupe was simply to provide a roof to protect from the elements, possibly to and from the track?
And thus now we have 'protection required' dictating the different options that come into play with the weight gain and lack of rigidity; and due to the carbon tub only the slight weight gain being the price a Maclaren owner has to pay between the two versions of the car.
I would therefore be daring enough to suggest that the most effective and desirable car to drive fast round a track would be one open to the elements where the driver can better see/feel/hear the surroundings and the performance of his own steed. The lack of any roof at all would also make the car lighter still.
The folding roof option, and even more so the coupe, simply panders to the softies who want a bit of protection from the precipitation that may or may not spoil their hair
I therefore suggest the better and purer track car will be the spider
If so, I'd agree with your conclusion - provided that with no top there is not an aerodynamic compromise.
To be a pure roadster - and you do want purity, I am sure - then we must eliminate opening doors as well. Think of the excess weight!
RamboLambo said:
Aren't F1 cars spyders with an open top ????
As far as I am concerned, a "spider/spyder" is by definition a car with no roof.In recent years the car manufacturers have simply usurped the term and wrongly applied it to normal cabriolets/convertibles in an attempt to make their cabriolets/convertibles seem more racy.
Boshly said:
I'd like to join the spider/coupe track car debate, the other argument has become a tad monotonous now I'm afraid. Surely the only reason coupes became better track cars was because as has been alluded to and mentioned, is the greater weight and lack of rigidity still, of a convertible version of a coupe.
However, surely the original ethos of a 'racing' motor vehicle was to sit in/on a car and go as fast as possible and the evolution of the coupe was simply to provide a roof to protect from the elements, possibly to and from the track?
And thus now we have 'protection required' dictating the different options that come into play with the weight gain and lack of rigidity; and due to the carbon tub only the slight weight gain being the price a Maclaren owner has to pay between the two versions of the car.
I would therefore be daring enough to suggest that the most effective and desirable car to drive fast round a track would be one open to the elements where the driver can better see/feel/hear the surroundings and the performance of his own steed. The lack of any roof at all would also make the car lighter still.
The folding roof option, and even more so the coupe, simply panders to the softies who want a bit of protection from the precipitation that may or may not spoil their hair
I therefore suggest the better and purer track car will be the spider
I think you have a good argument here if you were meaning something like the Boxster speedster. A spider with no roof, and therefore a reduction in weight. That coupe v spider debate is perfectly fine for the 650, but falls down when you look at what McLaren set out to achieve with the 675LT. It's blurb on the website says:-However, surely the original ethos of a 'racing' motor vehicle was to sit in/on a car and go as fast as possible and the evolution of the coupe was simply to provide a roof to protect from the elements, possibly to and from the track?
And thus now we have 'protection required' dictating the different options that come into play with the weight gain and lack of rigidity; and due to the carbon tub only the slight weight gain being the price a Maclaren owner has to pay between the two versions of the car.
I would therefore be daring enough to suggest that the most effective and desirable car to drive fast round a track would be one open to the elements where the driver can better see/feel/hear the surroundings and the performance of his own steed. The lack of any roof at all would also make the car lighter still.
The folding roof option, and even more so the coupe, simply panders to the softies who want a bit of protection from the precipitation that may or may not spoil their hair
I therefore suggest the better and purer track car will be the spider
"Experience the raw adrenaline of the McLaren 675LT, the lightest, most driver-focused, most exclusive series-production McLaren supercar ever built.
The 1997 McLaren F1 GTR ‘Longtail’ was the ultimate evolution of the Le Mans-winning F1 GTR. Almost two decades on, the limited-edition 675LT follows its uncompromising ethos to create a visceral driving experience of unique intensity. More power, less weight, more precision – nothing has escaped our attention in the quest for perfection on both road and track."
So the 675LT is a 'quest for perfection', race-car ethos, uncompromising... the lightest... to the point where they put less paint on the carbon to make it lighter, blah blah blah. Yes the spider is as stiff as the coupe, but can somebody explain how adding 40kg worth of folding roof just to appease the St Tropez posers fits in with the 675LT ethos? If they chopped the roof off and gave you a 10oz Kevlar fibre rain cape and wash-down neoprene seats then I'd get it, but adding the weight of a mechanical folding roof means it's no longer 'uncompromising', its no longer 'the lightest' and it's certainly no longer a 'quest for perfection'.
The Surveyor said:
Boshly said:
I'd like to join the spider/coupe track car debate, the other argument has become a tad monotonous now I'm afraid. Surely the only reason coupes became better track cars was because as has been alluded to and mentioned, is the greater weight and lack of rigidity still, of a convertible version of a coupe.
However, surely the original ethos of a 'racing' motor vehicle was to sit in/on a car and go as fast as possible and the evolution of the coupe was simply to provide a roof to protect from the elements, possibly to and from the track?
And thus now we have 'protection required' dictating the different options that come into play with the weight gain and lack of rigidity; and due to the carbon tub only the slight weight gain being the price a Maclaren owner has to pay between the two versions of the car.
I would therefore be daring enough to suggest that the most effective and desirable car to drive fast round a track would be one open to the elements where the driver can better see/feel/hear the surroundings and the performance of his own steed. The lack of any roof at all would also make the car lighter still.
The folding roof option, and even more so the coupe, simply panders to the softies who want a bit of protection from the precipitation that may or may not spoil their hair
I therefore suggest the better and purer track car will be the spider
I think you have a good argument here if you were meaning something like the Boxster speedster. A spider with no roof, and therefore a reduction in weight. That coupe v spider debate is perfectly fine for the 650, but falls down when you look at what McLaren set out to achieve with the 675LT. It's blurb on the website says:-However, surely the original ethos of a 'racing' motor vehicle was to sit in/on a car and go as fast as possible and the evolution of the coupe was simply to provide a roof to protect from the elements, possibly to and from the track?
And thus now we have 'protection required' dictating the different options that come into play with the weight gain and lack of rigidity; and due to the carbon tub only the slight weight gain being the price a Maclaren owner has to pay between the two versions of the car.
I would therefore be daring enough to suggest that the most effective and desirable car to drive fast round a track would be one open to the elements where the driver can better see/feel/hear the surroundings and the performance of his own steed. The lack of any roof at all would also make the car lighter still.
The folding roof option, and even more so the coupe, simply panders to the softies who want a bit of protection from the precipitation that may or may not spoil their hair
I therefore suggest the better and purer track car will be the spider
"Experience the raw adrenaline of the McLaren 675LT, the lightest, most driver-focused, most exclusive series-production McLaren supercar ever built.
The 1997 McLaren F1 GTR ‘Longtail’ was the ultimate evolution of the Le Mans-winning F1 GTR. Almost two decades on, the limited-edition 675LT follows its uncompromising ethos to create a visceral driving experience of unique intensity. More power, less weight, more precision – nothing has escaped our attention in the quest for perfection on both road and track."
So the 675LT is a 'quest for perfection', race-car ethos, uncompromising... the lightest... to the point where they put less paint on the carbon to make it lighter, blah blah blah. Yes the spider is as stiff as the coupe, but can somebody explain how adding 40kg worth of folding roof just to appease the St Tropez posers fits in with the 675LT ethos? If they chopped the roof off and gave you a 10oz Kevlar fibre rain cape and wash-down neoprene seats then I'd get it, but adding the weight of a mechanical folding roof means it's no longer 'uncompromising', its no longer 'the lightest' and it's certainly no longer a 'quest for perfection'.
It still has an alcantara or leather clad interior, it still has radio/nav/speakers/airbags/(some) sound deadening etc - all that crap that normal drivers want in their cars, but you would not require if the only goal was to build the best performing car.
And if you look at the buyers of the cars and the way they use them, I'd say McLaren got that right - people just want to be able to say they have an uncompromised/all-out performance car .... they don't want to buy (or better make that "drive") the real deal though. Much more important to have bare carbon this and that (regardless if it has a performance benefit or not), lairy paint colours and limited numbers.
So to summarise - I don't think 40kg extra do matter in the grand scheme of things as even the Coupe is by no means really the most focused thing you can build ....
Still, I would love to own a Coupe and much prefer it to the current 8 cylinder Ferrari offerings - looks better than the convertible imo and I don't like not-having-a-roof. And I would not really care if McLaren has behaved and/or will behave unethical as the car is either good or not, and the 675 certainly seems to fall into the good car category.
Can understand though why people are unhappy about being lied too - I would be too, but hopefully it would not completely sour my driving pleasure.
MDL111 said:
all on board with what you are saying, but ultimately I am pretty sure even the Coupe is by no means the race-car ethos / lightest it can be - this is all marketing bla bla.
It still has an alcantara or leather clad interior, it still has radio/nav/speakers/airbags/(some) sound deadening etc - all that crap that normal drivers want in their cars, but you would not require if the only goal was to build the best performing car.
....
Totally agree and there will be better cars built by McLaren in the future I'm sure, but it is the perception (sales fluff) presented to the buyers of the 675LT coupe about that ethos which is then disregarded when they produce a 'Sunset Boulevard' version. It still has an alcantara or leather clad interior, it still has radio/nav/speakers/airbags/(some) sound deadening etc - all that crap that normal drivers want in their cars, but you would not require if the only goal was to build the best performing car.
....
MDL111 said:
It still has an alcantara or leather clad interior, it still has radio/nav/speakers/airbags/(some) sound deadening etc - all that crap that normal drivers want in their cars, but you would not require if the only goal was to build the best performing car.
When I specced my car (not a McLaren, redder and more Italian) I deleted the stereo, nav, parking camera/sensors, electrochromatic mirrors, and wiggly headlights. The airbags and electric windows would have gone too if it had been possible. I've no doubt knocked a hole in its resale value, but do I care? Would be interesting to know what proportion of supercar buyers do this.The Surveyor said:
So the 675LT is a 'quest for perfection', race-car ethos, uncompromising... the lightest... to the point where they put less paint on the carbon to make it lighter, blah blah blah. Yes the spider is as stiff as the coupe, but can somebody explain how adding 40kg worth of folding roof just to appease the St Tropez posers fits in with the 675LT ethos? If they chopped the roof off and gave you a 10oz Kevlar fibre rain cape and wash-down neoprene seats then I'd get it, but adding the weight of a mechanical folding roof means it's no longer 'uncompromising', its no longer 'the lightest' and it's certainly no longer a 'quest for perfection'.
Ah but that's my (somewhat tongue in cheek) point. Look at the current F1 drivers feelings on potentially enclosing their cockpits. The coupe compromises the open cockpit, and thus sound/feel/smell, of a 'proper' race car in the pursuit of adverse weather protection. The Mac spider compromises 40kg (approx 2.5/3%?) of weight for the same protection.I would say it's just as much of a quest for perfection, just a different path.
So please, less of the St TROPEZ posers BS. Us spider drivers are just as much purists as you coupe guys
maybe more Flemke you're right about doors and more weight saving etc but I'm only looking at like for like here, after all as our Italian stallion driving friend suggests we could ditch lots of other comforts including the GPS also, but then we'd never find the tracks in the first place
Boshly said:
The Surveyor said:
So the 675LT is a 'quest for perfection', race-car ethos, uncompromising... the lightest... to the point where they put less paint on the carbon to make it lighter, blah blah blah. Yes the spider is as stiff as the coupe, but can somebody explain how adding 40kg worth of folding roof just to appease the St Tropez posers fits in with the 675LT ethos? If they chopped the roof off and gave you a 10oz Kevlar fibre rain cape and wash-down neoprene seats then I'd get it, but adding the weight of a mechanical folding roof means it's no longer 'uncompromising', its no longer 'the lightest' and it's certainly no longer a 'quest for perfection'.
Ah but that's my (somewhat tongue in cheek) point. Look at the current F1 drivers feelings on potentially enclosing their cockpits. The coupe compromises the open cockpit, and thus sound/feel/smell, of a 'proper' race car in the pursuit of adverse weather protection. The Mac spider compromises 40kg (approx 2.5/3%?) of weight for the same protection.I would say it's just as much of a quest for perfection, just a different path.
So please, less of the St TROPEZ posers BS. Us spider drivers are just as much purists as you coupe guys
maybe more Flemke you're right about doors and more weight saving etc but I'm only looking at like for like here, after all as our Italian stallion driving friend suggests we could ditch lots of other comforts including the GPS also, but then we'd never find the tracks in the first place
The argument that the coupe and the spider are both compromised relative to a "pure" car presumes that they are equally compromised, but in fact they are not. The spider is more compromised as a driver's car. More compromised is not as good as less.
Could you, or anyone, possibly articulate for us what the point is of the spider version? What exactly does the user get out of it - in terms of driving?
Cheers.
flemke said:
Could you, or anyone, possibly articulate for us what the point is of the spider version? What exactly does the user get out of it - in terms of driving?
For me - driving a convertible is more enjoyable than driving a coupe when it is a nice warm, sunny, day and I'm on a beautiful country road. I love the rush of the air all around me and enjoying the big, beautiful sky above as I drive. It's great on a warm summer night too!flemke said:
Yes, quarter panels are the same; 675LT's rear wing is an extension of them, whereas in 688 they are not extended.
That is incorrect. The MSO HS's quarter panels are different than those on the 675LT. The 675LT quarter panels have an indentation where the wing meets the bodywork. In the MSO HS that indentation is not needed because the wing is permanently suspended above the bodywork. The cover over the exhaust section is also different on the MSO HS because of the changes to location of the wing struts. flemke said:
I agree with The Surveyor.
The argument that the coupe and the spider are both compromised relative to a "pure" car presumes that they are equally compromised, but in fact they are not. The spider is more compromised as a driver's car. More compromised is not as good as less.
Could you, or anyone, possibly articulate for us what the point is of the spider version? What exactly does the user get out of it - in terms of driving?
Cheers.
I guess it comes down to what you count as driving. If it's being in a car and enjoying the experience the previous poster covered it - you get a lot more sensory experiences with a roof off. Which is fair IMO - the reason you pay so much money for this type of car is the enjoyment and how it makes you feel (and/or for some people being seen as rich). If you count driving in this case as the fastest time it will be a bit slower, but for most drivers their skills will be far more of a variable in lap times than difference the roof weight makes. The main reason against it for driving experience might be if it was like a traditional convertible, with lots of skuttle shake which is unpleasant, but the general reviews seem to say that it is not a problem because of the carbon tub on this car.The argument that the coupe and the spider are both compromised relative to a "pure" car presumes that they are equally compromised, but in fact they are not. The spider is more compromised as a driver's car. More compromised is not as good as less.
Could you, or anyone, possibly articulate for us what the point is of the spider version? What exactly does the user get out of it - in terms of driving?
Cheers.
boxerTen said:
When I specced my car (not a McLaren, redder and more Italian) I deleted the stereo, nav, parking camera/sensors, electrochromatic mirrors, and wiggly headlights. The airbags and electric windows would have gone too if it had been possible. I've no doubt knocked a hole in its resale value, but do I care? Would be interesting to know what proportion of supercar buyers do this.
i believe that two lambos in the uk have deleted stereo etcFlemke you really are like a stuck old record,move on ,lifes to short.
If you guys are such driving gods to notice 40 kg,i will be totaly impressed and amazed with 675bhp to push it along.
a spyder would be in your mirrors,or in front .The coupe is no more a racer or boulevard cruiser than the spyder,just simply marketing models.
What the spyder does do ,is provide very enjoyable fun driving with the flexability of the roof.Try lowering the rear window in the coupe,for all that noise,surely the coupe rear window lowers,does it not;).
Its nearly as much fun as all the porsches with roof out capability,and i hope better in time if possible.!
I would say it's just as much of a quest for perfection, just a different path.
So please, less of the St TROPEZ posers BS. Us spider drivers are just as much purists as you coupe guys maybe more
Flemke you're right about doors and more weight saving etc but I'm only looking at like for like here, after all as our Italian stallion driving friend suggests we could ditch lots of other comforts including the GPS also, but then we'd never find the tracks in the first placeI agree with The Surveyor.
The argument that the coupe and the spider are both compromised relative to a "pure" car presumes that they are equally compromised, but in fact they are not. The spider is more compromised as a driver's car. More compromised is not as good as less.
Could you, or anyone, possibly articulate for us what the point is of the spider version? What exactly does the user get out of it - in terms of driving?
Cheers.
If you guys are such driving gods to notice 40 kg,i will be totaly impressed and amazed with 675bhp to push it along.
a spyder would be in your mirrors,or in front .The coupe is no more a racer or boulevard cruiser than the spyder,just simply marketing models.
What the spyder does do ,is provide very enjoyable fun driving with the flexability of the roof.Try lowering the rear window in the coupe,for all that noise,surely the coupe rear window lowers,does it not;).
Its nearly as much fun as all the porsches with roof out capability,and i hope better in time if possible.!
flemke said:
Boshly said:
The Surveyor said:
So the 675LT is a 'quest for perfection', race-car ethos, uncompromising... the lightest... to the point where they put less paint on the carbon to make it lighter, blah blah blah. Yes the spider is as stiff as the coupe, but can somebody explain how adding 40kg worth of folding roof just to appease the St Tropez posers fits in with the 675LT ethos? If they chopped the roof off and gave you a 10oz Kevlar fibre rain cape and wash-down neoprene seats then I'd get it, but adding the weight of a mechanical folding roof means it's no longer 'uncompromising', its no longer 'the lightest' and it's certainly no longer a 'quest for perfection'.
Ah but that's my (somewhat tongue in cheek) point. Look at the current F1 drivers feelings on potentially enclosing their cockpits. The coupe compromises the open cockpit, and thus sound/feel/smell, of a 'proper' race car in the pursuit of adverse weather protection. The Mac spider compromises 40kg (approx 2.5/3%?) of weight for the same protection.I would say it's just as much of a quest for perfection, just a different path.
So please, less of the St TROPEZ posers BS. Us spider drivers are just as much purists as you coupe guys
maybe more Flemke you're right about doors and more weight saving etc but I'm only looking at like for like here, after all as our Italian stallion driving friend suggests we could ditch lots of other comforts including the GPS also, but then we'd never find the tracks in the first place
The argument that the coupe and the spider are both compromised relative to a "pure" car presumes that they are equally compromised, but in fact they are not. The spider is more compromised as a driver's car. More compromised is not as good as less.
Could you, or anyone, possibly articulate for us what the point is of the spider version? What exactly does the user get out of it - in terms of driving?
Cheers.
boxerTen said:
MDL111 said:
It still has an alcantara or leather clad interior, it still has radio/nav/speakers/airbags/(some) sound deadening etc - all that crap that normal drivers want in their cars, but you would not require if the only goal was to build the best performing car.
When I specced my car (not a McLaren, redder and more Italian) I deleted the stereo, nav, parking camera/sensors, electrochromatic mirrors, and wiggly headlights. The airbags and electric windows would have gone too if it had been possible. I've no doubt knocked a hole in its resale value, but do I care? Would be interesting to know what proportion of supercar buyers do this.Someone else whose peeved about all these 'Limited Edition' cars not being really limited.
https://youtu.be/acqju5YA4m8
boxerTen said:
When I specced my car (not a McLaren, redder and more Italian) I deleted the stereo, nav, parking camera/sensors, electrochromatic mirrors, and wiggly headlights. The airbags and electric windows would have gone too if it had been possible. I've no doubt knocked a hole in its resale value, but do I care? Would be interesting to know what proportion of supercar buyers do this.
good man.lots of people don't have this mentality unfortunately, I was interested in finding an m3 csl once but wanted one in the lightest spec (-aircon -stereo etc) but couldn't find a single example which to me was surprising as it's against the spirit of the car to spec these things.
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff