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".
roon
roon
449
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:04 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

Not saying it is sci fi magic. Is the i series as a halo brand particularly concerned with profit? Corvette factory is set up for producing composite bodywork--maybe there is some potential there for structural parts. But the chassis has been metal for its history and there would be a financial cost to revamping the chassis side of operations.

Regardless various materials can achieve the same rigitiy requirements. CF no panacea.

NoDivergence
NoDivergence
33
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:52 am

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

Not at the same weight, which is why (you guessed it) all bespoke racecars use a carbon instead of a metal chassis when possible

User avatar
DiogoBrand
95
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:02 pm
Location: Brazil

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

Why are we comparing this car to a Corvette here? I would expect them to have entirely different propositions.

Might as well compare the T50 to a Reliant Robin while we're at it.

User avatar
pierrre
42
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2019 8:45 pm
Location: a jungle somewhere

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

other areas to look into on the T.50. think there should be a low ground clearance mode...that fan would be extremely effective on low ground clearance or lowered side....i.e side skirts

facebook @speedphysics
youtube/c/speedphysics

trinidefender
trinidefender
334
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:37 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

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.
Lotus exige, Ariel atom, caterham.

Hell you can take a BRZ/FRS/GT86 and tune it to be a whole lot faster for less money.

The argument you make is silly.

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

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

trinidefender wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:06 pm
Pierce89 wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:32 pm
Just_a_fan wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:33 am

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.
Lotus exige, Ariel atom, caterham.

Hell you can take a BRZ/FRS/GT86 and tune it to be a whole lot faster for less money.

The argument you make is silly.
In the US, of the cars you mentioned, only the Toybaru 86 is actually cheaper than a base Corvette. Also, once it is tuned to 500 up and 1.2g on a skidpad, no I'm not thinking it will be cheaper than the Vette.
As for the Lotus, Ariel, and Caterham, you'll need very high spec models to beat the Vette, which will cost more than the Vette.
“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

User avatar
Morteza
2314
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:23 pm
Location: Bushehr, Iran

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."~William Shakespeare

Maplesoup
Maplesoup
22
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

I feel like this is purely for marketing. I can't see much benefit from teaming up with an F1 team like racing point for this.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
662
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

Maybe he just used their wind tunnel to do the aero design. After all, the teams have tunnels they can't use because they're limited in the number of hours they can use them.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
Morteza
2314
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:23 pm
Location: Bushehr, Iran

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."~William Shakespeare

Maplesoup
Maplesoup
22
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:25 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:03 pm
Maybe he just used their wind tunnel to do the aero design. After all, the teams have tunnels they can't use because they're limited in the number of hours they can use them.
Interesting that racing point have a wind tunnel but don't use it for their F1 operations. Probably an issue with how big the cars have gotten perhaps.

Maritimer
Maritimer
22
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:45 pm
Location: Canada

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

Believe most teams had tunnels designed for inwash front wings, so once outwash became so powerful nobody had a wide enough area to properly study it. Hence half the grid using the Toyota tunnel nowadays.

MadMatt
MadMatt
147
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:04 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

So with the fan ON the pressure is increased under the car. Am I missing something? #-o

User avatar
jjn9128
427
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

MadMatt wrote:
Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:58 pm
So with the fan ON the pressure is increased under the car. Am I missing something? #-o
You're looking at total pressure not static pressure. For Df you want to look at static pressure.

Maritimer wrote:
Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:19 pm
Believe most teams had tunnels designed for inwash front wings, so once outwash became so powerful nobody had a wide enough area to properly study it. Hence half the grid using the Toyota tunnel nowadays.
Most F1 wind tunnels were designed in the 90s for 25-40% models with no outwash as you say, but scale (really they blockage ratio) is the biggest factor. Toyota and Sauber (BMW) built their tunnels for full size models with moderate blockage ratios - which is even better for 60% scale models as they are limited to. The sidewalls of the Racing Point tunnel bow outwards to try and prevent the streamlines around the model squeezing against the wall - but it really is too small for modern F1. Ferrari basically had to rebuild their wind tunnel 5/6 years back for 60% models at great expense and even use AeroLab/Fondmetal for some of their road car stuff.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

Nonserviam85
Nonserviam85
11
Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 10:21 am

Re: McLaren F1 successor

Post

Pierce89 wrote:
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.
Your statement is also incomplete, do you remember the fuel flow rates and fuel consumption?