McLaren F1 successor

Breaking news, useful data or technical highlights or vehicles that are not meant to race. You can post commercial vehicle news or developments here.
Please post topics on racing variants in "other racing categories".
humble sabot
23
User avatar
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:33 am

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by humble sabot » Thu Jun 06, 2019 6:23 am

If you consider how many cubic feet of air there might in the space under a car, it doesn't take an enormous amount of throughput, at low speeds at least
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

AngusF1
6
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:54 am

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by AngusF1 » Thu Jun 06, 2019 9:49 am

Incredible. Great news for the world and a win for driving purity over "climate" piety.

Some technical items and differences to the original:
  • Gigantic fan at the back for active downforce production. Interesting...
  • Engine power more or less the same, 641hp up from 627hp.
  • Engine about 2/3rds the capacity revving more than 3/2s faster.
  • They have moved away from compliant high-sidewalled tyres of 17" to thin, stiff 19" and 20" tyres. I wonder what the reasoning behind this is - modern damper technology now allowing for acceptable comfort at negligible tyre thicknesses? Can anyone familiar with contemporary dampers comment here?
  • Tyre widths similar but rears are slightly narrower - 295 compared to 315 on the original.
  • The chassis seems to have moved away from the concept of providing twisting resistance via the two central rails on either side of the driver. This allowed the F1 to have very low door sills for entry. Instead the rails on either side of the driver terminate forward of the knees to allow for easier entry to the driving seat, at the expense of higher door sills.
  • Very heavy curvature on the windscreen.
  • Brakes carbon-ceramic rather than steel on the original. Murray had wanted to use carbon on the F1 but the low-temperature performance was insufficient.
  • No evidence of side luggage panniers, and the diffuser starts well forward of the rear wheel. Wonder what the intention is here?
  • Flip-up airbrake for centre of pressure regulation under braking, same as original.
  • Unfortunately forced by regulation to adopt the cowardly ABS, traction control and airbag.
  • Regrettably bulbous wheel arches at the front, presumably mandated by regulation.

Morteza
1669
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:23 pm
Location: Bushehr, Iran

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Morteza » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:20 am

This caught my eye from Autocar's article
The T.50’s 3.9-litre engine is extremely small and light for a V12. According to the designer’s instruction, it is also very high-revving, redlining at 12,100rpm with a hard limit of 12,400rpm, and it produces slightly more power than the F1’s 6.1-litre V12 engine of 1993. Internal details are secret for the time being, but Murray did say “everything’s titanium”.
Everything's titanium? What does it mean?
Last edited by Morteza on Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."~William Shakespeare

AngusF1
6
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:54 am

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by AngusF1 » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:22 am

He's referring to the inside of the engine.

Morteza
1669
User avatar
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:23 pm
Location: Bushehr, Iran

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Morteza » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:48 am

AngusF1 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:22 am
He's referring to the inside of the engine.
Ah, I see, thank you.
By the way have we ever had a road car with such a design? I mean the usage of titanium for the engine's internal parts?
"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."~William Shakespeare

roon
392
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by roon » Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:20 am

Imagine if F1 went in this direction. Leave hybridization and electrification to road cars.

Regarding this car and Valkyrie's NA V12s: an aesthetic choice? If F1 had freer engine regs, I wonder if we'd see well developed NA engines return or if pressure charging would always be utilized.

Just_a_fan
438
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Just_a_fan » Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:21 am

I think F1 would stick with turbos if they had free choice between turbo and N/A engines. The turbo engine is more compact, lighter etc. than the N/A engine required to get the same power output.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools."

Pat Pending
2
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2016 12:11 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Pat Pending » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:35 pm

Re lack of ESC etc, they only plan to make 100 and I think I'm correct in saying that the regulations on ESC etc being mandatory don't apply to low volume manufacture like that.

humble sabot
23
User avatar
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:33 am

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by humble sabot » Wed Jun 12, 2019 7:35 am

For a given displacement NA will always be more compact, and turbo will always have the higher potential power. For a given power, it requires working out a whole system's math because with a turbo you have not just a lot of extra heat load, but your block and internals have to deal with higher cylinder pressures meaning more weight. When they were working it out for the Valkyrie, for the target power, twice as many cylinders and NA worked out lighter, and more compact overall.

Heat exchangers and their attendant ductwork filled with fluid take up space and have significant mass.
So, no rules: it depends on your aero philosophy, and your need for peak power. F1 has almost always favoured developing your engine for max power, which allows you to expand your weight and downforce budget. So even if you have a little extra frontal area, and a touch more mass, if you have more power you're probably still going to be at an advantage.
the four immutable forces:
static balance
dynamic balance
static imbalance
dynamic imbalance

Pierce89
96
User avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Pierce89 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:32 pm

Just_a_fan wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:33 am
Zynerji wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:22 pm
I think I'll still elect to pick up the Corvette C8 instead... It's an unbelievable amount of car for under $60k.
Entirely different proposition. The Corvette is aimed at USians that think live rear axles are kinda modern. Metal chassis? Really?
What will beat in performance to price ratio? Go on, I'll wait.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

Pierce89
96
User avatar
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:38 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Pierce89 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:34 pm

Just_a_fan wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:21 am
I think F1 would stick with turbos if they had free choice between turbo and N/A engines. The turbo engine is more compact, lighter etc. than the N/A engine required to get the same power output.
That's a bit of a toss up. In the V10 era BMW got 1000 hp out of 85 kilos.
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970

“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher

Just_a_fan
438
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Just_a_fan » Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:44 pm

Pierce89 wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:32 pm
Just_a_fan wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:33 am
Zynerji wrote:
Wed Jun 05, 2019 6:22 pm
I think I'll still elect to pick up the Corvette C8 instead... It's an unbelievable amount of car for under $60k.
Entirely different proposition. The Corvette is aimed at USians that think live rear axles are kinda modern. Metal chassis? Really?
What will beat in performance to price ratio? Go on, I'll wait.
It'll be cheap, I have no doubt. I wonder what the price will be once it's had options added. Also, I wonder what it will cost outside of the US.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools."

Just_a_fan
438
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Just_a_fan » Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:08 pm

Oh look, the chassis is struggling with the grunt it has to handle.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/car ... 149723002/

A decent CF chassis wouldn't be having that problem... :wink:
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools."

roon
392
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by roon » Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:16 pm

Same could be said for a properly designed chassis of any material. CF supplies, process and tooling likely still cost prohibitive for the mass market versions. The report is a sort of good bad-press. "We gave it too much power." Humble bragging. Who knows if this is a real cause of delay.

Just_a_fan
438
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post by Just_a_fan » Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:25 pm

BMW have a mass market CF-chassis vehicle in the i3. CF isn't space age anymore, it's a consumer-level material these days.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools."