F1technical.net

I agree mod, the Koenigsegg makes me embarassed being a Swedish engineer. 1000 hp crap if you ask me.

I just don't buy that whole excuse of "it looks plain because it is focused and efficient".

The McLaren F1 looks better than the 12C, *and* it is a faster, more capable car.

Also if you use aerodynamics as an excuse for the 12C's generic shape, that doesn't hold up either. The 12C is expected to have a top speed lower than a Ferrari Enzo.

Compare a Ferrari Enzo for a moment to the 12C; the Enzo looks absolutely radical style-wise to the 12C (then again, an Enzo looks radical compared to most supercars).

The Enzo's exterior shape is not the most efficient in terms of aerodynamics or performance, so Ferrari made up for that by using active aerodynamics.

McLaren could have come up with more dramatic styling and compensated for the lower aerodynamic efficiency with active aerodynamics.

vasia wrote:I just don't buy that whole excuse of "it looks plain because it is focused and efficient".

There is this engineering expression, which I think is fitting for the MP4-12C, "Form follows function".

xpensive wrote:

vasia wrote:I just don't buy that whole excuse of "it looks plain because it is focused and efficient".

There is this engineering expression, which I think is fitting for the MP4-12C, "Form follows function".

Agreed. Why make a shape that is not efficient in the first place and than try to make it more efficient by using tricks like active aerodynamics which add weight and compexity?

Why? Well how about why would you pay such a huge amount for a car that looks boring, that looks nothing special, and that does not excite or entice? At this price range, the competition has exotic looks *and* performance.

I also will once again bring up the example of the McLaren F1, which despite being an older design and older car, actually looks more exciting and more exotic than the 12C.

Even without active aerodynamics, there are plently of supercars that look better than the 12C while still being efficient and focused designs.

Depends on your preferences, I would take a more efficient supercar over a more exotic looking one every single time For me supercars are exotic because they are efficient, fast and focused and not because they look exotic.

Oh, and yes, todays supercars are too compromised to be a true supercars anyway so it is always a good thing to see a company going back to basics more or less

actually i really like the car. Why? because of the simple lines that make the car, it looks really skinny and the first think i think of it is that it is fast, that is what i seek in a supercar, for the same reason i dislike the Veyron, it looks really fat, it is overweight, not what i seek in a supercar.

There's a good article about the car in the current issue of Evo. It features interviews with some of the key staff.

It's also got stuff on the Ferrari 458 Italia and Mercedes SLS... so it's quite a good issue. I'd recommend having a flick through it.

Also on the Mclaren website they've got some fancy graphics and information about the car:
http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/uk/default.aspx

I think it's a wonderful approach, the first supercar that is actually engineered, where "form-follows-function" is allowed to rule all te way. No monster-engine to please the cylinder-counters or outrageous xterior, it only makes sense that the name reflects that.

Does anyone know what the second brake caliper-like thing is on the rear brake disc?

I've noticed it on a few cars, and my friend and I couldn't figure out what it was for. Thanks.

deus1066 wrote:

Does anyone know what the second brake caliper-like thing is on the rear brake disc?

The second smaller caliper is the parking brake caliper. Most street cars have the parking brake integrated into the rear caliper, but some high performance calipers don't include the park brake mechanism in order to optimize stiffness, heat rejection, etc. Therefore, a separate mini park-brake caliper is needed.

An different solution for high performance vehicles is to put a crude drum-type brake inside the disk hat/hub that is for parking brake actuation only. The normal brakes continue to use a conventional caliper on the disk.

Thanks, that was our best guess, but we couldn't figure out why performance cars would want to increase unsprung weight or why they couldn't just use the regular caliper. Anyway, thanks again.

I like the fact that its not a true supercar. Its more aimed at performance, similar to the 3.8lt turbo Nissan GTR.
I think we may be seeing the true Mclaren supercar later down the line. This one can suffice; its relatively affordable and i can bet its the best handling thing out there.
What i would like to see though are better looking wheels; that's one thing i never liked about the F1, the wheels.

Where are the intercoolers anyway? behind the radiators?
And what's the point in having such big frontal openings if there are no heat exchangers in the front? And are those fins in the openings like little dive planes?

The intercoolers are the front. If you go to their website and look at the exploded picture of the car, you'll be able to notice them.

Intercoolers at the front of a rear-engined car? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

What's that web-site anyway, tom?