F1technical.net

mzivtins wrote:

Pierce89 wrote:Where did this idea that Mclaren always ignores looks for performance come from. I'm too lazy to dig them up, but I've read many quotes before that Mclaren puts a lot of work into aesthetics. Their initial nose this year sacrificed a bit of performance potential for aesthetics.

As we later found, that was a bluff. The floor design was why the whole think looked the way it did, no one in f1 would sacrifice performance for looks.

Just as Formula 1 teams have the design brief to go as quickly as opssible and everything is optimised towards that.
These are prodction cars, and ore optimised to make people open their wallets. Just because it's McLaren that's making it, doesn't change that.

What i'm saying is, it's all a balance to what they think they can most successfully market (and that isn't pure performance).

The diffusor looks like they have build real tunnels.

xxChrisxx wrote:

mzivtins wrote:

Pierce89 wrote:Where did this idea that Mclaren always ignores looks for performance come from. I'm too lazy to dig them up, but I've read many quotes before that Mclaren puts a lot of work into aesthetics. Their initial nose this year sacrificed a bit of performance potential for aesthetics.

As we later found, that was a bluff. The floor design was why the whole think looked the way it did, no one in f1 would sacrifice performance for looks.

Just as Formula 1 teams have the design brief to go as quickly as opssible and everything is optimised towards that.
These are prodction cars, and ore optimised to make people open their wallets. Just because it's McLaren that's making it, doesn't change that.

What i'm saying is, it's all a balance to what they think they can most successfully market (and that isn't pure performance).

I see what you're saying here, it makes sense, otherwise why would so much thought go into the quality of paint... it has too look good i guess.

And also why they're apparently only going to make it with the steering wheel on the left hand side, despite being a British company.

I feel saddened by that! Any link or info that can confirm/deny this?

mzivtins wrote:
I feel saddened by that! Any link or info that can confirm/deny this?

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/mclar ... s-revealed

Harvey wrote:And also why they're apparently only going to make it with the steering wheel on the left hand side, despite being a British company.

Probably a complexity cost issue. I reckon the left hand drive market with all of Europe both Americas, Arabia and China is substantially bigger and they cannot justify the engineering resources and cost for both variants. Perhaps they will introduce a right hand steering version later on.

On many websites, I've seen people giving thumbs down to it's looks - mostly commenting it has been "overstyled". I just hope massive love for the predecessor doesn't turn into hatred for the successor... (like Love Never Dies vs Phantom of the Opera ... well well well...)

I give credit to Ron and his people for just having the guts to build a successor to the F1. For such a long time I thought that will be the one and only road car McLaren is going to build.

The one and only, and forever the best.

I'm not sure, however, whether the looks of the F1 gave it that legendary status. For me, it acquired the "forever best" mark because it was the fastest car in the world / it had huge success in racing / it used effing GOLD in the engine compartment / driver in the middle... It set new heights and standards for flagship super cars, some of which still haven't been surpassed today.

To build a car to continue on that lineage is inconcievably tough. We also need to be reminded that the F1 project was somewhat driven more by pure passion than business. Today with the MP4 in the market we can be quite sure Ron Dennis means serious business. They have to build a flagship that had pure performance built into it, but the product needs to appeal to the market as well.

Back to the looks - for me there's only one real problem: the front. The wide profile that was required to give the lights the logo shape is a bit overstyled - I don't quite believe that design was driven from aero (I could be wrong). However I'm quite sure that it will blow my mind if I see it in person. If the reports about it generating 5 times the downforce of the MP4 are true, this beast is going to set new heights and new standards like its predecessor - and that's where it will gain credibility as the F1's successor, NOT its looks.

Still, I do have another comment on the looks - they've done such a beautiful job with the chrome paint on there Formula1 cars. Why don't they use that on the P1? Wouldn't that be SUPER COOL? This orange is... great but I don't think this color really fits McLaren apart from the fact that it's also in the logo (I'm not even sure if it's the same color actually). For me McLaren's always been either red / black / chrome - and clearly chrome is the coolest. I think if they went with that it would have blown everybody's mind off already - plus giving it more linkage to the racing heritage of the company. And they hung these orange formula cars at the back of the car show that only reminds me of... Spyker??

Anyway I'm sure this car will become another legend just like the F1. The best is yet to come.

Actually the Mclarens traditional colour has always been orange, (papaya orange I believe, although I don't think thats the correct shade.) It predates the chrome, black, and white liveries. I think it was the M6A back in the 60's that started the trend for some advertising reason I think? And they stuck with it. It has been used as their testing colours, and I think as an interim livery between changes in title sponsors etc.

edit: Source, http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/uk/cha ... racing_m6a it was 1967, and was so it would stand out on american TV.

Right, the McLaren orange comes from Bruce's days of Can-Am racing, where he painted his unsponsored cars orange so that potential sponsors would notice and hopefully pick him up.

When racing, those orange cars showed up best. That is a great color that really distinguishes the cars from others in a field, when all are at speed.

Photos and TV do not show it as much as when you see the racing live.

I rather like the car. It looks different enough, but still resembles the MP4. The F1 looks dated.

dren wrote:I rather like the car. It looks different enough, but still resembles the MP4. The F1 looks dated.

I so agree with that. UK medias (and people) are still talking about the F1 like it came out yesterday. Its good to be proud, but just grow up, people ! Just look around, there are faster cars around for years now. Of course the F1 is very fast, but it came out when the safety regulations were from another age (saving lot of weight), when there was no electronic as we have today (traction control, stability control, electronic A/C, ABS, active suspension, gearbox, etc.), look at the balloon tires (I know this was the trend back then but they are ridiculous now). Don't get me wrong tho, I like the F1, its a fantastic machine, a work of art, but that car did its time.

Its a bit like the whole UK, people are living in the past, they like to remember the "good old time" but its not sane (and before you say anything, I've been living in the UK for months).

Just my 2 cents now I before I get nice comments about that message

MadMatt wrote: Just look around, there are faster cars around for years now.

True, the Bugatti and a couple of others but not many.

Of course the F1 is very fast, but it came out when the safety regulations were from another age (saving lot of weight), when there was no electronic as we have today (traction control, stability control, electronic A/C, ABS, active suspension, gearbox, etc.),

The lack of electronic aids was a design decision, not a legislative one. Gordon Murray didn't want anything getting between car and driver. Had he wanted to provide any of those systems then he would have done so. Kenwood, for example, produced a bespoke ICE system for the vehicle in order to meet Murray's weight restrictions. Bosch would no doubt have made a similarly clever/light ABS system if requested. They tried to equip the F1 with carbon brakes but they couldn't get them to work well enough. It was a few years before Porsche/Ferrari got ceramic brakes to work. Murray would have fitted ceramics had they been available in time.

look at the balloon tires (I know this was the trend back then but they are ridiculous now).

The trend today of tyres with tiny sidewall dimensions is ridiculous in many cases. Lots of cars have a horrible crashy ride on anything other than perfect tarmac because of it.

Don't get me wrong tho, I like the F1, its a fantastic machine, a work of art, but that car did its time.

And not much has beaten it since its time. What is so nice about it, to me at least, is that it is designed so well. Form follows function in a pure sense. Look at the luggage capacity, for example - it's got as much luggage space as many mid-sized saloons of its day. Very cleverly done.

Its a bit like the whole UK, people are living in the past, they like to remember the "good old time" but its not sane (and before you say anything, I've been living in the UK for months).

Living in the UK for months? Wow, you're an expert in the British psyche then

Just_a_fan wrote:

MadMatt wrote: Just look around, there are faster cars around for years now.

True, the Bugatti and a couple of others but not many.

Playing with words !

Just_a_fan wrote:

MadMatt wrote:Of course the F1 is very fast, but it came out when the safety regulations were from another age (saving lot of weight), when there was no electronic as we have today (traction control, stability control, electronic A/C, ABS, active suspension, gearbox, etc.),

The lack of electronic aids was a design decision, not a legislative one. Gordon Murray didn't want anything getting between car and driver. Had he wanted to provide any of those systems then he would have done so. Kenwood, for example, produced a bespoke ICE system for the vehicle in order to meet Murray's weight restrictions. Bosch would no doubt have made a similarly clever/light ABS system if requested. They tried to equip the F1 with carbon brakes but they couldn't get them to work well enough. It was a few years before Porsche/Ferrari got ceramic brakes to work. Murray would have fitted ceramics had they been available in time.

You are right but that lack of technology saved lot of weight at a time when all these electronic devices were not common on the cars. Try to launch a supercar without any electronic device today and see how it would sell. I doubt the results would be very good. Also at that time, McLaren could afford to build only a few of these cars which cannot be done in our days where ecological laws and general opinion is striking supercars everyday. Recently, only Aston Martin with the One 77 did the exact same thing, with quite bad result.

So yes, going without technology on the F1 was clever, cheaper for McLaren, and got them less troubles with eventual electronic failures, while selling it as a "you can feel what a real driver feels in his race car". I really look forward to that P1 to see what its got in store, but I am sure the F1 will definitely go to the museum once the P1 has been launched !

Just_a_fan wrote:

MadMatt wrote: look at the balloon tires (I know this was the trend back then but they are ridiculous now).

The trend today of tyres with tiny sidewall dimensions is ridiculous in many cases. Lots of cars have a horrible crashy ride on anything other than perfect tarmac because of it.

Yes, 22" chrome wheels with /20 tires look ridiculous I agree, but there is a way between these 2 extremes which is imo the best compromise between design and efficiency.

Just_a_fan wrote:

MadMatt wrote:Don't get me wrong tho, I like the F1, its a fantastic machine, a work of art, but that car did its time.

And not much has beaten it since its time. What is so nice about it, to me at least, is that it is designed so well. Form follows function in a pure sense. Look at the luggage capacity, for example - it's got as much luggage space as many mid-sized saloons of its day. Very cleverly done.

Yep, you quote me !

Just_a_fan wrote:

MadMatt wrote:Its a bit like the whole UK, people are living in the past, they like to remember the "good old time" but its not sane (and before you say anything, I've been living in the UK for months).

Living in the UK for months? Wow, you're an expert in the British psyche then

You don't need to be in a country for years to see how it works

MadMatt wrote:

Just_a_fan wrote:

MadMatt wrote: Just look around, there are faster cars around for years now.

True, the Bugatti and a couple of others but not many.

Playing with words!

I think you've missed the point of the McLaren F1. It was supposed to be the ultimate driver's car. That it was the quickest road car at the time was not as important as the way it made the driver feel. Admittedly, I've never driven the car, but every review I've ever read talks about the emotional connection between the driver and the car. How it responds to every driver input, how you can feel the road, how it rides so softly and how there are no irksome annoyances for the driver. It was the attention to detail, focussing on the driving experience and nothing else that made the car what it is. Doing 240mph and costing £630m just brought it fame.

MadMatt wrote:You don't need to be in a country for years to see how it works

But it helps. Being in a country also doesn't mean you know how it works either