RE: McLaren Senna christens factory floor
Wednesday 17th January 2018
Set against a background of uncertainty over the future of British automotive manufacturing, news of McLaren's £50m investment in a Yorkshire carbon construction facility remains an encouraging development. When fully operational next year, the McLaren Composites Technology Centre is expected to employ around 200 people; moreover, by producing the carbon MonoCell and MonoCages in Yorkshire - rather than abroad, as is currently the case - the amount of British built parts in McLarens will increase to 58 per cent.
For many of course it was the first time to see the car in action and have a poke around it. While it's not for us to arbitrate on good design, the Senna is far easier to appreciate when you see it up close. It's more compact and cohesive than those original shots suggested, with some lovely details - see the glass door inserts - interspersed with that phenomenal aero. The interior takes McLaren's minimalist chic to another level, too. It really is an incredible object, and that's coming from someone who thought very differently just a few days ago.
McLaren Senna christens factory floor
Read enough on how the Senna looks? Now you can see it on the move!
All very worthy, but still insufficient to motivate a swathe of journalists up the M1. Thoughtfully, McLaren also brought along a Senna as part of its MCTC inauguration ceremony and, as you can see below, put on a something of a show. What better treat at this time of the morning than a doughnut? Or ten...
There's a lot more to follow and plenty to discuss in the coming weeks on the Senna, which we'll be sure to bring you; for now, enjoy some management approved factory floor frolics!
Discussion
JohnoVR6 said:
Can't just be me that thinks it looks awesome? Then again, I quite liked the Gumpert Apollo....
If anything, and of more importance to me given my budget, at least the Lego model of it is going to be eerily accurate for once.
I like the Gumpert, but this is just ugly, sorry.If anything, and of more importance to me given my budget, at least the Lego model of it is going to be eerily accurate for once.
Not changed my view.
I keep meaning to make this point, but forget every time. McLaren say that it's 'brutally functional' and imply that it looks terrible because it has to look like that to be quick. But I just don't buy that. I can't for the life of me remember who said it, or where, but I'm sure I remember reading or hearing that generally, if a car/plane/boat is designed to be super efficient aero/hydrodynamically, it will, as a product of that property, look beautiful.
Examples I'd use would be things like Concorde:
Racing yachts:
Modern aero heavy endurance cars like the Porsche 919:
None are inherently designed to be beautiful (and some may say the Porsche isn't), but they're all some how 'right' if that makes sense. Everything looks balanced. There is of course science to this. It's well known that symmetry and certain geometries that are mathematically 'right' are viewed as more beautiful than those that aren't which is precisely why things like flowers are symmetrical. Bee's are more attracted to symmetrical looking flowers!
So for McLaren to say it 'had' to look like that, seems weird. The P1 was what I'd describe as 'functional', but it still looked beautiful, but partly as a by product of the aero requirements. The 12C was well known for not being 'styled' per say, and was very much for over function, and yet of all the McLaren cars of the modern era, it's probably the most timeless....
Examples I'd use would be things like Concorde:
Racing yachts:
Modern aero heavy endurance cars like the Porsche 919:
None are inherently designed to be beautiful (and some may say the Porsche isn't), but they're all some how 'right' if that makes sense. Everything looks balanced. There is of course science to this. It's well known that symmetry and certain geometries that are mathematically 'right' are viewed as more beautiful than those that aren't which is precisely why things like flowers are symmetrical. Bee's are more attracted to symmetrical looking flowers!
So for McLaren to say it 'had' to look like that, seems weird. The P1 was what I'd describe as 'functional', but it still looked beautiful, but partly as a by product of the aero requirements. The 12C was well known for not being 'styled' per say, and was very much for over function, and yet of all the McLaren cars of the modern era, it's probably the most timeless....
Nah...
" McLaren say that it's 'brutally functional' and imply that it looks terrible because it has to look like that to be quick.
That was never implied. McLaren simply said they made no excuse for the way it looked, function over form etc...
Personally, I love it... If I had the money and was lucky enough... I would have one and use it.
Of course I get where you're coming from but we all have our opinions, what we think is attractive etc. The Porsche LM car you posted, it is obviously "designed to be super efficient aero/hydrodynamically,' but, as a product of that property, it does not look beautiful to me. It looks like I'd expect a LM race car to look but not beautiful.
" McLaren say that it's 'brutally functional' and imply that it looks terrible because it has to look like that to be quick.
That was never implied. McLaren simply said they made no excuse for the way it looked, function over form etc...
Personally, I love it... If I had the money and was lucky enough... I would have one and use it.
Of course I get where you're coming from but we all have our opinions, what we think is attractive etc. The Porsche LM car you posted, it is obviously "designed to be super efficient aero/hydrodynamically,' but, as a product of that property, it does not look beautiful to me. It looks like I'd expect a LM race car to look but not beautiful.
Edited by HighwayStar on Wednesday 17th January 12:57
RacerMike said:
I keep meaning to make this point, but forget every time. McLaren say that it's 'brutally functional' and imply that it looks terrible because it has to look like that to be quick. But I just don't buy that. I can't for the life of me remember who said it, or where, but I'm sure I remember reading or hearing that generally, if a car/plane/boat is designed to be super efficient aero/hydrodynamically, it will, as a product of that property, look beautiful.
That tends to be true where you're looking for minimal drag, when you want to reduce drag as far as possible while also generating high levels of downforce things tend to get less pretty.Seeing the Senna next to that old F1 car made me realise for the first time that it's actually pretty small, only 1200kg too.
I don't find it a beautiful thing to look at, but that's not the point, if it does what it's supposed to do on the track then that's job done. Maybe I'm buying into the marketing BS, but buying one isn't a choice I'm ever going to have to make, so I'm free to do that
charltjr said:
That tends to be true where you're looking for minimal drag, when you want to reduce drag as far as possible while also generating high levels of downforce things tend to get less pretty.
Seeing the Senna next to that old F1 car made me realise for the first time that it's actually pretty small, only 1200kg too.
I don't find it a beautiful thing to look at, but that's not the point, if it does what it's supposed to do on the track then that's job done. Maybe I'm buying into the marketing BS, but buying one isn't a choice I'm ever going to have to make, so I'm free to do that
Fair. It's just such an awkward looking thing. I suppose it's not that surprising....they have to be one of the most autistic companies out there, and if you imagine a car entirely designed by engineers, I suspect it would end up looking like the Senna. For me, it's just a bit of a missed opportunity. They had a chance to make something truly mad like the Apollo 'Emotionally Intense' thing:Seeing the Senna next to that old F1 car made me realise for the first time that it's actually pretty small, only 1200kg too.
I don't find it a beautiful thing to look at, but that's not the point, if it does what it's supposed to do on the track then that's job done. Maybe I'm buying into the marketing BS, but buying one isn't a choice I'm ever going to have to make, so I'm free to do that
Let's be honest...it wouldn't be any slower if it looked like that, and would be considerably cooler for it.
Grimlock said:
In one sense it does look ugly if it was seen in sloane square but would look incredible out on track.
But if we all refer back to the 8 year old versions of ourselves you would see a poster of it in the rack in a shop and want to have it up on your wall
Nope. 8 year old me would still rather have a poster of a LaFerrari/Pagani Zonda R/P1. It doesn't look brutal. It just looks like an ill proportioned kit car. Be honest....if it didn't have a McLaren badge on it, it would be universally (rather than just widely) panned....But if we all refer back to the 8 year old versions of ourselves you would see a poster of it in the rack in a shop and want to have it up on your wall
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff