Lots of 675LTs for sale..
Discussion
garyhun said:
Just out of interest, has the advent of the LT Spider had any negative affect on the value of the coupe?
No question about it.The mere fact that some people who bought coupes decided, upon learning that a spider was coming, that they would prefer the hairdressers' version (sorry, Mark
) and then sold their coupes which otherwise they presumably would have kept, is enough to demonstrate that the creation of 500 (now at least 525) spiders unavoidably affected the value of the coupes.TP321 said:
flemke said:
Well, a convertible track car seems rather a contradiction in terms, but I doubt we're going to agree on that one.
McLaren supposedly decided to make the spider after people came to them and asked them to make a spider version of the LT.
Regardless of how good the spider may be, do you think it was right of McLaren, having stated that they would make only a coupe version, to double the production run by making a spider?
Do you think it was right of some customers - assuming that this in fact happened - to go to McLaren and ask them to break the commitment that they had already made to the coupe buyers?
It doesn't matter....McLaren bring out an improved car every month...everyone gets screwed in the end...McLaren supposedly decided to make the spider after people came to them and asked them to make a spider version of the LT.
Regardless of how good the spider may be, do you think it was right of McLaren, having stated that they would make only a coupe version, to double the production run by making a spider?
Do you think it was right of some customers - assuming that this in fact happened - to go to McLaren and ask them to break the commitment that they had already made to the coupe buyers?
flemke said:
Well, a convertible track car seems rather a contradiction in terms, but I doubt we're going to agree on that one.
It's a road car that's more track focused than their usual road cars but still a road car. So I don't see it as a contradiction at all - especially when we're talking about a McLaren with a carbon tub. I've tracked my 650S Spider plenty of times (and I've tracked McLaren's 650S coupes at three McLaren track days) and for someone of my skill level there's no discernible difference between the coupe and the spider. Sure the coupe is probably some percentage of a second faster around a track but these aren't race cars so that's meaningless. You still get the same dynamic feeling from the spider as you do from the coupe and you have the benefit of an open roof road car for the ride home from the track. For guys like me who live in sunny, warm climates that's worth the extra fraction of a second in lap times. flemke said:
Regardless of how good the spider may be, do you think it was right of McLaren, having stated that they would make only a coupe version, to double the production run by making a spider?
It would be pretty hypocritical of me to say it wasn't because I was one of the customers begging them to do it 
flemke said:
Do you think it was right of some customers - assuming that this in fact happened - to go to McLaren and ask them to break the commitment that they had already made to the coupe buyers?
Yes because I wanted a spider version of the LT. I'm a 675LT customer and I'm not the least bit bothered by it. I'm a P1 customer as well and I'm not the least bit bothered by the P1 GTR road car conversions either. I'm also not bothered by the carbon bodied 675LT Spiders or the HS version of the 675. If 675LT customers were bothered by the announcement of the 675LT Spider they had ample time to sell their 675LT coupes at a very nice profit and avoid buying future McLarens. Same goes for 675LT Spider customers who want to rid themselves of their car because McLaren made another 25 far more expensive versions of them. It's great that the Spyder was added - more people can get into an amazing piece of kit and residuals are still mega strong. Plans change and McLaren did the right thing by adding the Spyder - right for their customers and right for their bottom line. Even now there's painfully few cars and I'm struggling to find a spec and price that's good for me. So please can owners (especially those that got in at list) go enjoy their cars and be happy that a British company is making great cars.
flemke said:
The mere fact that some people who bought coupes decided, upon learning that a spider was coming, that they would prefer the hairdressers' version (sorry, Mark ) and then sold their coupes which otherwise they presumably would have kept, is enough to demonstrate that the creation of 500 (now at least 525) spiders unavoidably affected the value of the coupes.
Yes it does however people still could have gotten out of their cars at a profit once the announcement was made. If they chose not to then they chose so knowing full well what to expect. But as the world finds out more and more what an amazing car the 675LT is, and as McLaren opens more dealerships to expose their cars to more markets & consumers, then I think those values will start going up again. Being on the top of Top Gears lap time leaderboard, and getting rave reviews, isn't going to hurt either.) and then sold their coupes which otherwise they presumably would have kept, is enough to demonstrate that the creation of 500 (now at least 525) spiders unavoidably affected the value of the coupes.McLaren's biggest problem is there aren't enough dealers in close proximity to enough buyers so that enough people can discover how amazing their cars are and start to build up higher levels of demand. I think the sports series (i.e. 570S, 570GT) are going to really help them over time but it will take time. In the USA the dealers are spaced way too far apart and many large markets are unserved. I buy, and service, my McLarens from a dealer over 400 miles away but most car buyers won't do that.
Jon666 said:
It's great that the Spyder was added - more people can get into an amazing piece of kit and residuals are still mega strong. Plans change and McLaren did the right thing by adding the Spyder - right for their customers and right for their bottom line. Even now there's painfully few cars and I'm struggling to find a spec and price that's good for me. So please can owners (especially those that got in at list) go enjoy their cars and be happy that a British company is making great cars.
I hope you find one, they're absolutely fantastic on road and track. I own a 650S Spider and I had to make the call on the 675LT Spider before my 675LT coupe arrived. I was going back and forth on whether I should buy it or not mostly because I was worried the 675LT would be so much more raw than my beloved 650S Spider. I already had a P1 and I didn't want to lose the magic carpet ride of the 650S and end up with something too close to the completely raw, rattle your fillings & overload your senses, ride of the P1. I figured I could always keep the 650S Spider and sell the LT Spider when it arrived but I didn't want to order a car I wasn't planning to keep so I wasn't sure. Luckily when the 675LT coupe arrived (only a few weeks after the LT Spider launch) I was so relieved to find it's far more like an amazingly-optimized-for-track-fun 650S than a watered-down P1. It still has the amazing ride of the 650S (maybe even better because almost all of the floaty-ness has been dialed out) with a lot more grip, downforce, noise and performance. There are some minor compromises - turning ratio is race-car bad and the front lip is very low (absolutely spec the lifter and learn how to use it!) but it is still the most incredibly visceral street car you can buy for under a million dollars!MarkNC said:
flemke said:
Well, a convertible track car seems rather a contradiction in terms, but I doubt we're going to agree on that one.
It's a road car that's more track focused than their usual road cars but still a road car. So I don't see it as a contradiction at all - especially when we're talking about a McLaren with a carbon tub. I've tracked my 650S Spider plenty of times (and I've tracked McLaren's 650S coupes at three McLaren track days) and for someone of my skill level there's no discernible difference between the coupe and the spider. Sure the coupe is probably some percentage of a second faster around a track but these aren't race cars so that's meaningless. You still get the same dynamic feeling from the spider as you do from the coupe and you have the benefit of an open roof road car for the ride home from the track. For guys like me who live in sunny, warm climates that's worth the extra fraction of a second in lap times. flemke said:
Regardless of how good the spider may be, do you think it was right of McLaren, having stated that they would make only a coupe version, to double the production run by making a spider?
It would be pretty hypocritical of me to say it wasn't because I was one of the customers begging them to do it flemke said:
Do you think it was right of some customers - assuming that this in fact happened - to go to McLaren and ask them to break the commitment that they had already made to the coupe buyers?
Yes because I wanted a spider version of the LT. I'm a 675LT customer and I'm not the least bit bothered by it. I'm a P1 customer as well and I'm not the least bit bothered by the P1 GTR road car conversions either. I'm also not bothered by the carbon bodied 675LT Spiders or the HS version of the 675. If 675LT customers were bothered by the announcement of the 675LT Spider they had ample time to sell their 675LT coupes at a very nice profit and avoid buying future McLarens. Same goes for 675LT Spider customers who want to rid themselves of their car because McLaren made another 25 far more expensive versions of them.The 675LT spider is akin to the forthcoming LaFerrari spider: yes, it is new and different, but at the same time it seems silly.
I respect you for admitting here that you were one of the people who lobbied McLaren Automotive to make the spider.
Saying that, I cannot respect the fact that you did lobby them. To try to persuade someone to act unethically, for the reason that you personally would benefit from that unethical behaviour, is nothing to be proud of.
Trying to persuade someone to behave unethically is not as bad as actually behaving unethically. I would not criticise you as much as I criticise McLaren Automotive. No one forced them to break their promises, yet they broke them all the same. I do think it was wrong of you and other people to encourage them to do so.
We can debate the extent to which the arrival of the various "new" models has affected the values of the old models on which they were based or indeed of which they were mere violations of the production run limits. That effect, which may be impossible to measure but which anyone who knows anything about markets must admit has happened, has upset many P1 and 675LT coupe owners.
Beyond that, what is beyond debate is that McLaren Automotive have now, several times, broken promises to customers. Even if I might forego making a profit, I prefer not to deal with people who break promises and have difficulty telling the truth.
flemke said:
I think the question of the inherent contradiction of a convertible track car is not only, "Why have a track car that is compromised by being a convertible?", but is equally, "Why have a convertible that is compromised by being a track car?"
Having owned a 650S Spider (and two 12C Spiders before that) I certainly don't feel, thanks to the rigidity of the carbon tub, that they're compromised in any significant way. These are road cars you can use and enjoy on the track. They're not race cars and I'm not racing them. So if the extra weight of the convertible roof causes me to lose half a second on my lap time I don't care that much. If I were so concerned about fractions of a second I would spend more time dieting because I could lose 30 pounds and be faster as well. Now the Ferrari 458 Spider that I owned was definitely compromised on the track compared to the 458 Italia I owned before it but I don't feel that same thing with McLarens.
flemke said:
I respect you for admitting here that you were one of the people who lobbied McLaren Automotive to make the spider.
Saying that, I cannot respect the fact that you did lobby them. To try to persuade someone to act unethically, for the reason that you personally would benefit from that unethical behaviour, is nothing to be proud of.
Trying to persuade someone to behave unethically is not as bad as actually behaving unethically. I would not criticise you as much as I criticise McLaren Automotive. No one forced them to break their promises, yet they broke them all the same. I do think it was wrong of you and other people to encourage them to do so.
I think it was something they should have done in the first place. From my viewpoint I lobbied them to correct what I felt was a mistake. I probably would have handled the announcement of the car a little differently if I had been running the company but I still would have corrected the mistake and I don't consider myself an unethical person. A lot of people wanted the 675LT in Spider form - it was clearly a mistake not to make one and they fixed their mistake. Saying that, I cannot respect the fact that you did lobby them. To try to persuade someone to act unethically, for the reason that you personally would benefit from that unethical behaviour, is nothing to be proud of.
Trying to persuade someone to behave unethically is not as bad as actually behaving unethically. I would not criticise you as much as I criticise McLaren Automotive. No one forced them to break their promises, yet they broke them all the same. I do think it was wrong of you and other people to encourage them to do so.
flemke said:
We can debate the extent to which the arrival of the various "new" models has affected the values of the old models on which they were based or indeed of which they were mere violations of the production run limits. That effect, which may be impossible to measure but which anyone who knows anything about markets must admit has happened, has upset many P1 and 675LT coupe owners.
And as a P1 and 675LT owner I will reiterate that I am not the least bit upset about these and I know other owners of these cars who are not upset about them either. I'm aware you had (and assume you still have) an F1 but do you own any of the models we're talking about here? (675LT, P1, P1 GTR, etc.)
Edited by MarkNC on Tuesday 12th July 03:08
MarkNC said:
flemke said:
The mere fact that some people who bought coupes decided, upon learning that a spider was coming, that they would prefer the hairdressers' version (sorry, Mark ) and then sold their coupes which otherwise they presumably would have kept, is enough to demonstrate that the creation of 500 (now at least 525) spiders unavoidably affected the value of the coupes.
Yes it does however people still could have gotten out of their cars at a profit once the announcement was made. If they chose not to then they chose so knowing full well what to expect. But as the world finds out more and more what an amazing car the 675LT is, and as McLaren opens more dealerships to expose their cars to more markets & consumers, then I think those values will start going up again. Being on the top of Top Gears lap time leaderboard, and getting rave reviews, isn't going to hurt either.) and then sold their coupes which otherwise they presumably would have kept, is enough to demonstrate that the creation of 500 (now at least 525) spiders unavoidably affected the value of the coupes.McLaren's biggest problem is there aren't enough dealers in close proximity to enough buyers so that enough people can discover how amazing their cars are and start to build up higher levels of demand. I think the sports series (i.e. 570S, 570GT) are going to really help them over time but it will take time. In the USA the dealers are spaced way too far apart and many large markets are unserved. I buy, and service, my McLarens from a dealer over 400 miles away but most car buyers won't do that.
In the first place, not all of them could have done.
Secondly, the issue is not whether someone could have made a profit. The issue is what a coupe would have been worth without all the spiders, and the prototypes, and the carbon-bodied cars being pumped out on top of the 500 coupes.
If 17 months ago someone took the then-blind risk of buying a coupe, paying a premium price for the promise of a maximum of 500 cars, then that person would be entitled to whatever profit might have ensued under those terms. At the outset, the 675LT coupe was not one of these "all sold to insiders and their pals before the public announcement" charades in which a fat profit is inevitable.
Everyone in the public market had an opportunity to buy a 675LT coupe, and at the time of signing up there was risk associated with that decision. Its customers having made a smart, profitable decision to take that risk, it was hardly fair for McLaren Automotive Ltd to steal (I mean that word, because that is what they did) most of that profit from their customers with the justification that there was still a bit of profit remaining for the customers.
Thirdly, the notion - if you didn't like the way that the 675LT deal turned out you could have sold it at a profit so what's the problem? - ignores the opportunity cost: what someone might have done in early 2015 instead of ordering a 675LT coupe. Whatever that alternative might have been, it no longer exists.
MarkNC said:
flemke said:
I respect you for admitting here that you were one of the people who lobbied McLaren Automotive to make the spider.
Saying that, I cannot respect the fact that you did lobby them. To try to persuade someone to act unethically, for the reason that you personally would benefit from that unethical behaviour, is nothing to be proud of.
Trying to persuade someone to behave unethically is not as bad as actually behaving unethically. I would not criticise you as much as I criticise McLaren Automotive. No one forced them to break their promises, yet they broke them all the same. I do think it was wrong of you and other people to encourage them to do so.
I think it was something they should have done in the first place. From my viewpoint I lobbied them to correct what I felt was a mistake. I probably would have handled the announcement of the car a little differently if I had been running the company but I still would have corrected the mistake and I don't consider myself an unethical person. A lot of people wanted the 675LT in Spider form - it was clearly a mistake not to make one and they fixed their mistake. Saying that, I cannot respect the fact that you did lobby them. To try to persuade someone to act unethically, for the reason that you personally would benefit from that unethical behaviour, is nothing to be proud of.
Trying to persuade someone to behave unethically is not as bad as actually behaving unethically. I would not criticise you as much as I criticise McLaren Automotive. No one forced them to break their promises, yet they broke them all the same. I do think it was wrong of you and other people to encourage them to do so.
A business mistake is unintentional, innocent, stupid or naive.
Breaking a promise is intentional, dishonest and lacking in integrity.
You don't correct an innocent business mistake by intentionally breaking your word and knowingly screwing loyal customers.
If McLaren Automotive truly, genuinely were just trying to "correct the mistake" of neglecting to plan for and announce the spider, they ought to have made it up to the coupe buyers by retroactively reducing the price the coupe buyers paid.
But McLaren Automotive were not trying to correct their mistake. This was not a case of "Oh, gee, we forgot about all those spider buyers out there. We've really let them down here!"
No, it was a much cruder thing: "Hey, we have an opportunity to cream a huge amount of money off the 675LT business. We got the coupe buyers to pay for all the fixed development costs, and to pay a premium on top of that for scarcity. Now we can flog 500 spiders at huge profit margins. Let's go for it!"
flemke said:
It's not as simple as saying that coupe buyers could have got out at a profit.
I get what you're saying but I disagree. Folks who were unhappy with the spider could have gotten out at a profit. I'm not saying a giant profit. Could they have gotten in the long term (i.e. later on) at the same profit as if McLaren hadn't made the extra cars? Nobody, you included, could say for certainty because we're nowhere near the long term yet.flemke said:
In the first place, not all of them could have done.
Maybe there are some outliers who spec'd such crazy cars they couldn't possibly resell for a profit but that risk was most certainly there regardless. But an undriven reasonably-spec'd 675LT could easily be resold for a very nice profit at the time the 675LT Spider had been announced and probably could still be - maybe even moreso now since millions of car enthusiasts probably saw the Top Gear review. flemke said:
Secondly, the issue is not whether someone could have made a profit. The issue is what a coupe would have been worth without all the spiders, and the prototypes, and the carbon-bodied cars being pumped out on top of the 500 coupes.
Nobody can say for sure what the hypothetical future would have held. Maybe with no spider to sell McLaren wouldn't have given cars to reviewers and instead worked harder to sell the remaining allocations of 650S instead with some special upgrades. Maybe they would have taken some of the 675LT upgrades down to 650S and brought out a 670S or 665S. flemke said:
If 17 months ago someone took the then-blind risk of buying a coupe, paying a premium price for the promise of a maximum of 500 cars, then that person would be entitled to whatever profit might have ensued under those terms
flemke said:
Thirdly, the notion - if you didn't like the way that the 675LT deal turned out you could have sold it at a profit so what's the problem? - ignores the opportunity cost: what someone might have done in early 2015 instead of ordering a 675LT coupe. Whatever that alternative might have been, it no longer exists.
Risk is risk. Those people who took the then-blind risk of buying a coupe also took the risk the car wouldn't be so wonderful. I can tell you first-hand I feel the 675LT turned out to be surprisingly better than I had expected. Given the reputation the car has received I don't feel the extra cars are really going to change the long-term financial perspective for the coupe in any significant way because the car turned out better than I expected and public excitement around this car is significantly higher than any prior 12C/650S variants. I'm also now certain McLaren underpriced it considerably. I get that you're mad at McLaren but I don't think issue is that much different than the P1 / P1 GTR issue you seem equally upset with. I don't think for a moment the existence of the P1 GTR is hurting the value of the P1 any more than the existence of the F1 GTR or F1 LM hurt the values of the normal F1 road car. I sure wish I owned an F1!
So yes McLaren has made some gaffes but I think they're heading down the right road and I believe they're learning from these mistakes.
MarkNC said:
Risk is risk. Those people who took the then-blind risk of buying a coupe also took the risk the car wouldn't be so wonderful. I can tell you first-hand I feel the 675LT turned out to be surprisingly better than I had expected. Given the reputation the car has received I don't feel the extra cars are really going to change the long-term financial perspective for the coupe in any significant way because the car turned out better than I expected and public excitement around this car is significantly higher than any prior 12C/650S variants. I'm also now certain McLaren underpriced it considerably.
I get that you're mad at McLaren but I don't think issue is that much different than the P1 / P1 GTR issue you seem equally upset with. I don't think for a moment the existence of the P1 GTR is hurting the value of the P1 any more than the existence of the F1 GTR or F1 LM hurt the values of the normal F1 road car. I sure wish I owned an F1!
So yes McLaren has made some gaffes but I think they're heading down the right road and I believe they're learning from these mistakes.
Having spent my career assessing and dealing with risk, I can assure you that it's rather more complicated than "risk is risk".I get that you're mad at McLaren but I don't think issue is that much different than the P1 / P1 GTR issue you seem equally upset with. I don't think for a moment the existence of the P1 GTR is hurting the value of the P1 any more than the existence of the F1 GTR or F1 LM hurt the values of the normal F1 road car. I sure wish I owned an F1!
So yes McLaren has made some gaffes but I think they're heading down the right road and I believe they're learning from these mistakes.
Regardless of that, my overarching point is that, if there is an organisation to whom I have been very loyal and supportive and to whom I have paid a great deal of money over many years, I do not expect to be lied to by them.
MarkNC said:
flemke said:
Well, a convertible track car seems rather a contradiction in terms, but I doubt we're going to agree on that one.
It's a road car that's more track focused than their usual road cars but still a road car. So I don't see it as a contradiction at all - especially when we're talking about a McLaren with a carbon tub. I've tracked my 650S Spider plenty of times (and I've tracked McLaren's 650S coupes at three McLaren track days) and for someone of my skill level there's no discernible difference between the coupe and the spider. Sure the coupe is probably some percentage of a second faster around a track but these aren't race cars so that's meaningless. You still get the same dynamic feeling from the spider as you do from the coupe and you have the benefit of an open roof road car for the ride home from the track. For guys like me who live in sunny, warm climates that's worth the extra fraction of a second in lap times. flemke said:
Regardless of how good the spider may be, do you think it was right of McLaren, having stated that they would make only a coupe version, to double the production run by making a spider?
It would be pretty hypocritical of me to say it wasn't because I was one of the customers begging them to do it flemke said:
Do you think it was right of some customers - assuming that this in fact happened - to go to McLaren and ask them to break the commitment that they had already made to the coupe buyers?
Yes because I wanted a spider version of the LT. I'm a 675LT customer and I'm not the least bit bothered by it. I'm a P1 customer as well and I'm not the least bit bothered by the P1 GTR road car conversions either. I'm also not bothered by the carbon bodied 675LT Spiders or the HS version of the 675. If 675LT customers were bothered by the announcement of the 675LT Spider they had ample time to sell their 675LT coupes at a very nice profit and avoid buying future McLarens. Same goes for 675LT Spider customers who want to rid themselves of their car because McLaren made another 25 far more expensive versions of them. I suspect your future Macs will be a little cheaper to buy :-)
Slickhillsy said:
flemke said:
Breaking a promise is intentional, dishonest and lacking in integrity.
Christ you are at risk of sending yourself to a very bitter early grave with this non-stop narrative! Can you not contribute in a more positive way, let it go man - we get it already... 
Yesterday MarkNC resurrected a post of mine from 9th March in which I criticised what McLaren did. He objected to what I wrote, and what you have seen are my responses to his posts directed towards me.
I have not re-introduced the issue in this thread.
flemke said:
Having spent my career assessing and dealing with risk, I can assure you that it's rather more complicated than "risk is risk".
Regardless of that, my overarching point is that, if there is an organisation to whom I have been very loyal and supportive and to whom I have paid a great deal of money over many years, I do not expect to be lied to by them.
then you'll know that the first rule of risk is not to expectRegardless of that, my overarching point is that, if there is an organisation to whom I have been very loyal and supportive and to whom I have paid a great deal of money over many years, I do not expect to be lied to by them.
andrew said:
flemke said:
Having spent my career assessing and dealing with risk, I can assure you that it's rather more complicated than "risk is risk".
Regardless of that, my overarching point is that, if there is an organisation to whom I have been very loyal and supportive and to whom I have paid a great deal of money over many years, I do not expect to be lied to by them.
then you'll know that the first rule of risk is not to expectRegardless of that, my overarching point is that, if there is an organisation to whom I have been very loyal and supportive and to whom I have paid a great deal of money over many years, I do not expect to be lied to by them.
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff