McLaren engine in the future?

[McG]

I thought the 12C engine was bespoke McLaren? Anyone got the source to it being made by Ricarro?

[Richard]

I thought the 12C engine was bespoke McLaren? Anyone got the source to it being made by Ricardo?

http://tinyurl.com/4c77twp

It is bespoke. It is made by Ricardo.

Probably all the car's components will be bespoke. I expect all the components are made by specialist external suppliers. They don't even do the carbon fibre themselves, that's made in Austria.

http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/ ... orts-cars/

McLaren simply assemble the parts

[Richied76]

The facility has been designed and configured around the requirements of its lead customer, McLaren Automotive, for whom it will act as the production supplier of the all-new McLaren M838T 90 degree, V8 twin-turbo engine. The high-performance, low emissions engine has been designed and developed by McLaren Automotive in partnership with Ricardo, and will power the McLaren MP4-12C high-performance sports car that is due to go on sale from May 2011. With pilot production of engines commenced and initial deliveries already taking place, commissioning of the new Ricardo engine assembly facility will be continued over the next two months as production volumes are ramped up.

Mclaren dont need to be chasing after ex BMW and Ilmore staff by the sounds of it :-"

[wesley123]

I thought the 12C engine was bespoke McLaren? Anyone got the source to it being made by Ricardo?

http://tinyurl.com/4c77twp

It is bespoke. It is made by Ricardo.

Probably all the car's components will be bespoke. I expect all the components are made by specialist external suppliers. They don't even do the carbon fibre themselves, that's made in Austria.

http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/ ... orts-cars/

McLaren simply assemble the parts

Such things are quite usual though, letting parts be fabricated by others. For example the Audi LMP's are designed by Audi Sport, but parts are all built by external companies.

[McG]

I thought the 12C engine was bespoke McLaren? Anyone got the source to it being made by Ricardo?

http://tinyurl.com/4c77twp

It is bespoke. It is made by Ricardo.

Probably all the car's components will be bespoke. I expect all the components are made by specialist external suppliers. They don't even do the carbon fibre themselves, that's made in Austria.

http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/ ... orts-cars/

McLaren simply assemble the parts

They don't give you that impression when reading about it on their website, I had never heard of Ricardo till now! I even signed up for emails about the 12C and still no mention. And lol at the first link, classic.

I thought the 12C engine was bespoke McLaren? Anyone got the source to it being made by Ricardo?

http://tinyurl.com/4c77twp

It is bespoke. It is made by Ricardo.

Probably all the car's components will be bespoke. I expect all the components are made by specialist external suppliers. They don't even do the carbon fibre themselves, that's made in Austria.

http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/ ... orts-cars/

McLaren simply assemble the parts

Such things are quite usual though, letting parts be fabricated by others. For example the Audi LMP's are designed by Audi Sport, but parts are all built by external companies.

I wonder if Ferrari and Mercedes do it also.

[Just_a_fan]

Ferrari make their own engines but they use components e.g. brakes from key suppliers but badged as Ferrari.

Mercedes have done so in the past, of course, using McLaren to build specials for them. Their F1 engines were originally 'badge jobs' too having been paid for by Mercedes but designed and built by Ilmor.

Last time McLaren made a road car they used a BMW engine. It was designed and built by BMW and badged with both BMW and McLarens names on the cam covers. This time, the engine is designed by McLaren (no doubt with input from the supplier) and then made by the supplier. Badging as "McLaren" in such circumstances is the usual thing to do.

Ricardo designed the gearbox for the Veyron too so they have history in supercar engineering.

Lots of companies use Graziano or ZF gearboxes, Quaife differentials etc. Often no mention of such things in the marketing stuff. It's quite normal.

[WhiteBlue]

I gave a perfectly logical reason why the press releases might be different, which doesn't require one of the parties to be lying: Mclaren has a guaranteed supply; Mercedes does not have a guaranteed customer. Not everything in life has to be so dramatic, and not everything involving McLaren has to have nefarious undertones.

McLaren say they have a guaranteed supply through 2015, and there's no reason not to believe them.

I'm tired by your manipulative ways. Here is what happened in a nut shell:

1. As usual you come out with a false accusation. You say the Mercedes press release was not by Mercedes but comment by a web site.

2. I show you your error and that the press release you quoted from was solely placed by McLaren. You ignore the fact that you got it all wrong.

3. You argue with false logic that the McLaren spin is correct. McLaren are a customer who has gone on a strategy to compete with Merc. Do you honestly believe that they can force one sided disadvantageous options on a company like Mercedes? Obviously a supply depends of McLaren's future acting in the market place. Why else would the partnership be terminated if the two companies were not evaluating their future options. Your interpretation of a guaranteed supply with non guranteed customer makes no sense in the economic reality. I call it delusional.

I'm not saying McLaren is outright lying, but they sure as hell use massive spin. Just from the quality of the press work one can deduct that McLaren is the party that spin doctors the truth. Merc published their own press release about the events of the 16.November 2009 on their web site. It is public, authentic and can be quoted for documentation. McLaren issued a release which pretends to speak for their former partner as well and has different wording on important issues. The document cannot be found on their web site for future reference. I know which of the two sources has a higher credibility.

[McG]

Ferrari make their own engines but they use components e.g. brakes from key suppliers but badged as Ferrari.

Mercedes have done so in the past, of course, using McLaren to build specials for them. Their F1 engines were originally 'badge jobs' too having been paid for by Mercedes but designed and built by Ilmor.

Last time McLaren made a road car they used a BMW engine. It was designed and built by BMW and badged with both BMW and McLarens names on the cam covers. This time, the engine is designed by McLaren (no doubt with input from the supplier) and then made by the supplier. Badging as "McLaren" in such circumstances is the usual thing to do.

Ricardo designed the gearbox for the Veyron too so they have history in supercar engineering.

Lots of companies use Graziano or ZF gearboxes, Quaife differentials etc. Often no mention of such things in the marketing stuff. It's quite normal.

Thanks. I knew about the McLaren F1's BMW engine. Although I was a fan of the F1 before I knew. I have the Driving Ambition book and it tells of the whole story of the F1.

[Alge7a]

I can't see McLaren passing on the opportunity to eventually make engines. Ron won't be able to help himself. The potential in other racing classes and what it will bring to the entire brand will outweigh any negatives. 2015 I think will be the right moment.

[Hangaku]

I gave a perfectly logical reason why the press releases might be different, which doesn't require one of the parties to be lying: Mclaren has a guaranteed supply; Mercedes does not have a guaranteed customer. Not everything in life has to be so dramatic, and not everything involving McLaren has to have nefarious undertones.

McLaren say they have a guaranteed supply through 2015, and there's no reason not to believe them.

I'm tired by your manipulative ways. Here is what happened in a nut shell:

1. As usual you come out with a false accusation. You say the Mercedes press release was not by Mercedes but comment by a web site.

2. I show you your error and that the press release you quoted from was solely placed by McLaren. You ignore the fact that you got it all wrong.

3. You argue with false logic that the McLaren spin is correct. McLaren are a customer who has gone on a strategy to compete with Merc. Do you honestly believe that they can force one sided disadvantageous options on a company like Mercedes? Obviously a supply depends of McLaren's future acting in the market place. Why else would the partnership be terminated if the two companies were not evaluating their future options. Your interpretation of a guaranteed supply with non guranteed customer makes no sense in the economic reality. I call it delusional.

I'm not saying McLaren is outright lying, but they sure as hell use massive spin. Just from the quality of the press work one can deduct that McLaren is the party that spin doctors the truth. Merc published their own press release about the events of the 16.November 2009 on their web site. It is public, authentic and can be quoted for documentation. McLaren issued a release which pretends to speak for their former partner as well and has different wording on important issues. The document cannot be found on their web site for future reference. I know which of the two sources has a higher credibility.

Which one? Mercedes Benz who have a works team, and need to keep sponsors happy, or McLaren, who have an engine deal, and need to keep sponsors happy. Yeah, I know which one is more credible too. OH HANG ON ...

During the course of any disagreement, you would do well to remember this:

F1 is full of liars. Take what you think you know to be true, rotate it 180 degrees, and find that you are still no closer to finding out the truth.

[Richied76]

+ 1 And accusing people of false logic and minipulative ways isnt good etiquette. This behavour for me is making me reconsider using this forum. Not singling anyone out as there are a few. BUT ANYWAY...this is a thread about a Mclaren engine not a press release.

I think maybe 2013 wouldnt be such a bad starting year. They (all manufactures) will be starting with a fresh sheet of paper designs. Theres plenty of time to do the ground work for 2013. Mclaren are also know to have spent millions on FEA, CDF, CAD etc.. may as well turn it to engines aswell. Maybe they will have to have them built by an outside contractor in the forseeable future but its not different to sending them back to Merc for rebuilds.

If they make Mclaren automotive profitable within a year or two then theres no reason to doubt they will want to reduce build cost and if an engine facility is viable then i see no reason for them not to also produce there formula one engines there also.

[McG]

I gave a perfectly logical reason why the press releases might be different, which doesn't require one of the parties to be lying: Mclaren has a guaranteed supply; Mercedes does not have a guaranteed customer. Not everything in life has to be so dramatic, and not everything involving McLaren has to have nefarious undertones.

McLaren say they have a guaranteed supply through 2015, and there's no reason not to believe them.

I'm tired by your manipulative ways. Here is what happened in a nut shell:

1. As usual you come out with a false accusation. You say the Mercedes press release was not by Mercedes but comment by a web site.

2. I show you your error and that the press release you quoted from was solely placed by McLaren. You ignore the fact that you got it all wrong.

3. You argue with false logic that the McLaren spin is correct. McLaren are a customer who has gone on a strategy to compete with Merc. Do you honestly believe that they can force one sided disadvantageous options on a company like Mercedes? Obviously a supply depends of McLaren's future acting in the market place. Why else would the partnership be terminated if the two companies were not evaluating their future options. Your interpretation of a guaranteed supply with non guranteed customer makes no sense in the economic reality. I call it delusional.

I'm not saying McLaren is outright lying, but they sure as hell use massive spin. Just from the quality of the press work one can deduct that McLaren is the party that spin doctors the truth. Merc published their own press release about the events of the 16.November 2009 on their web site. It is public, authentic and can be quoted for documentation. McLaren issued a release which pretends to speak for their former partner as well and has different wording on important issues. The document cannot be found on their web site for future reference. I know which of the two sources has a higher credibility.

Which one? Mercedes Benz who have a works team, and need to keep sponsors happy, or McLaren, who have an engine deal, and need to keep sponsors happy. Yeah, I know which one is more credible too. OH HANG ON ...

During the course of any disagreement, you would do well to remember this:

F1 is full of liars. Take what you think you know to be true, rotate it 180 degrees, and find that you are still no closer to finding out the truth.

Good book about it all...

[Edis]

I think it would prudent to build it yourself. Look at Mercedes and how they lost ground on Ferrari in 2001 after Berylium was found to have been used from an outside supplier.
Yes they built it themselves, but any information now is near super secret. To keep it that way you need a tightly knit unit. Harder when you outsource...

I don't see your point. Mercedes-Ilmor made their own pistons, unlike Ferrari which buys them from Mahle Motorsport. Mercedes-Ilmor made AlBeMet pistons and liners with the assistance of AlBeMet supplier Brush Wellman. So McLaren became a "have" while Ferrari was a "have not". So what do you do when you are a "have not"? Of course, you try to get the technology banned and in that way take away the advantage from your competition and that was exactly what Ferrari did. When you have invested a lot in a technology like specialist equipment, know how and developed designs that take advantage of the unique material properties of AlBeMet it is of course a serious setback when the material is banned, which it was in 2001.

Normally you focus on your core competence and outsource and buy from suppliers when it comes to the rest. Beryllium composites isn't the core competence for racing engine manufacturers.

Ilmor still exist, as do MBHE.

Mercedes-Ilmor was essentially split into two companies. Mercedes-Benx HPE from the F1 division and Ilmor from the rest.

Probably all the car's components will be bespoke. I expect all the components are made by specialist external suppliers. They don't even do the carbon fibre themselves, that's made in Austria.

That was the case with the SLR McLaren too, or why not look at Boeing where most of the carbon fibre parts for the 787 are made by various suppliers.

With the 12C I suspect many of the parts are made with automated processes rather than hand made as is the case with carbon fibre parts for F1 cars. Using for instance rapid injection molding you do a dry lay up in a form and then the polymer is injected into the form producing a part in minutes rather than hours as is the case with a wet lay up by hand.

They don't give you that impression when reading about it on their website, I had never heard of Ricardo till now! I even signed up for emails about the 12C and still no mention. And lol at the first link, classic.

Ricardo is probably not that well known outside the automotive industry, but they are a large company focused toward automotive consulting. They are often hired by car manufacturers to do research and development. They also make their own simulation tools.

If you go to any car manufacturers website you usually don't find information about who is supplying what. For instance, how many people know that Alcoa is supplying aluminum space frames to Ferrari or that their Porsche ceramic composite brakes are supplied by SGL Group?

Ferrari make their own engines but they use components e.g. brakes from key suppliers but badged as Ferrari.

Ferrari make their own engines, but many of the parts are made by suppliers. Pistons from Mahle Motorsport, rods from Pankl, valves from Del West and so on. Infact, there are specilist suppliers than can supply every part of a F1 engine if you want to. There are even companies that can assemble your engine for you, like I believe Mecachrome do for Renault (Renault only do R&D). So if you have the money, making your own F1 engine isn't that hard. But to be competitive from the start it's a good idea to introduce your engine at a major engine regulation change. Otherwise it can take time to catch up.

[Pup]

I'm tired by your manipulative ways. Here is what happened in a nut shell:

1. As usual you come out with a false accusation. You say the Mercedes press release was not by Mercedes but comment by a web site.

2. I show you your error and that the press release you quoted from was solely placed by McLaren. You ignore the fact that you got it all wrong.

3. You argue with false logic that the McLaren spin is correct. McLaren are a customer who has gone on a strategy to compete with Merc. Do you honestly believe that they can force one sided disadvantageous options on a company like Mercedes? Obviously a supply depends of McLaren's future acting in the market place. Why else would the partnership be terminated if the two companies were not evaluating their future options. Your interpretation of a guaranteed supply with non guranteed customer makes no sense in the economic reality. I call it delusional.

I'm not saying McLaren is outright lying, but they sure as hell use massive spin. Just from the quality of the press work one can deduct that McLaren is the party that spin doctors the truth. Merc published their own press release about the events of the 16.November 2009 on their web site. It is public, authentic and can be quoted for documentation. McLaren issued a release which pretends to speak for their former partner as well and has different wording on important issues. The document cannot be found on their web site for future reference. I know which of the two sources has a higher credibility.

My "manipulative ways"? Incredible. You always find a way to turn it up to 11.

1. I made no false accusations - I pointed out that you linked to an article, not a press release, which I think is true. Whether after I pointed that out you were able to find and link to a real press release is irrelevant - the whole point was that you disparagingly called my comment a "myth", so I provided you with the source of that "myth", McLaren's press release.

2. I got nothing wrong. I showed you McLaren's actual press release - from three different sources even, since you implied that it had been "faked". If you want to say that McLaren are lying, then fine but you need to prove them wrong, not me. They say they have a guaranteed supply; you say they don't. So either they're lying or they're not, regardless of your sugar coating the accusation by calling it "spin".

3. Delusional, really? Mercedes needed McLaren's permission to even supply Brawn with an engine, so why would anyone be surprised that they would need to give McLaren something in order to buy and run a separate team? A guaranteed engine supply for a specific period sounds like part of a pretty reasonable settlement to me. So I provided a perfectly logical yet boring reason for the discrepancy. You just refuse to accept it, for reasons I'm not sure.

Could McLaren have been lying? Maybe, I don't know - but I have a hard time figuring out why they would want or need to. And if they did, you'd certainly think Mercedes would have asked for a correction, or made the clarification themselves. And if you believe that McLaren did lie, there certainly isn't evidence enough, if any, to go around printing public accusations about it.

So, what I'm really curious about is why this is obviously so important to you. It seems like a pretty insignificant issue, yet you're willing to make completely unsubstantiated and potentially libelous claims about McLaren - not to mention me - in public.

[WhiteBlue]

1. I made no false accusations - I pointed out that you linked to an article, not a press release, which I think is true. Whether after I pointed that out you were able to find and link to a real press release is irrelevant - the whole point was that you disparagingly called my comment a "myth", so I provided you with the source of that "myth", McLaren's press release.

2. I got nothing wrong. I showed you McLaren's actual press release - from three different sources even, since you implied that it had been "faked". If you want to say that McLaren are lying, then fine but you need to prove them wrong, not me. They say they have a guaranteed supply; you say they don't. So either they're lying or they're not, regardless of your sugar coating the accusation by calling it "spin".

3. Delusional, really? Mercedes needed McLaren's permission to even supply Brawn with an engine, so why would anyone be surprised that they would need to give McLaren something in order to buy and run a separate team? A guaranteed engine supply for a specific period sounds like part of a pretty reasonable settlement to me. So I provided a perfectly logical yet boring reason for the discrepancy. You just refuse to accept it, for reasons I'm not sure.

Could McLaren have been lying? Maybe, I don't know - but I have a hard time figuring out why they would want or need to. And if they did, you'd certainly think Mercedes would have asked for a correction, or made the clarification themselves. And if you believe that McLaren did lie, there certainly isn't evidence enough, if any, to go around printing public accusations about it.

So, what I'm really curious about is why this is obviously so important to you. It seems like a pretty insignificant issue, yet you're willing to make completely unsubstantiated and potentially libelous claims about McLaren - not to mention me - in public.

1. It is not irrelevant because the section I quoted verbatim was identical in the article and the original source.

2. So now you agree that the text you showed wasn't issued by Mercedes - as you initially claimed - but by McLaren. Hence you got it wrong and even admit to it indirectly now.

3. I have always agnowledged the fact that McLaren and Mercedes had a partnership agreement in place that gave McLaren veto rights on Mercedes F1 engines including the year 2011. It is obvious that McLaren therefore had to approve the 2009 Brawn deal. I fail to see how that would influence the decision published on 16.November 2009 to terminate the partnership with McLaren.

McLaren have been caught lying several times about issues of public interest. Compare Spygate, the Renault IP theft by Philip Mackereth and Liegate. Each time on investigation they have been forced to retreat and apologise to the public for their lies. The company is not credible when their press statement is different to Mercedes who have an impeccable track record of telling the truth in their public records.

I will not make a judgement about the truth of your statements. I'll leave that to the users. I'll be happy enough if you associate yourself with McLaren with regard to doctoring the facts.