F1technical.net

Not sure I saw the bit where McLaren claimed that the MP4-12C was conceived, intended or designed to 'replace' the F1. The F1 was a car conceived and designed by one controlling mind with one overriding consideration - the ultimate driver's car with minimal weight. It's real problem is that Murray thought that power steering etc. prevented the car from being the ultimate driver's car. The result is a car that is a beast. An old-fashioned supercar in effect.

15 years on, the technology of driver aids has changed massively and they can be included without removing the driver from the picture. Apparently, the PAS on the -12C has good steering feel, for example.

The fact that the MP4-12C can match the F1's performance figures with less power and massively less cost is the real indicator of how cars have changed since the F1 was built. Indeed, the -12C / F1 mirrors the situation with the 458/Enzo.

I think it's wrong to try to compare the -12C with the F1. They're a generation apart and built for very different markets and very different goals.

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

My god, your "E" key works? All this time I've been under the assumption you'd spilled something on it.

As far as the car goes, it seems to me this one is intended to be the one McClaren goes racing with. If that's true, it seems likely they've made at least a few compromises in that direction. That would also nicely explain most of the "soulless" comments.

As far as calling Ron Dennis a wannabe Enzo, I think that is horribly unfair. Enzo sold cars for the sole purpose of making money to race with, and he hated doing it. He aparently also hated the people who bought them.

That's a massive difference to Ron Dennis, who you should all remember was facing the real possibility of having to hand out 1,000 pink slips. Go back a few years, to when F1 was in turmoil, the manufacturers were threatening to pull out, and the FIA president was making it his personal mission in life to destroy McClaren. Spygate? Sure, only in Mosley's fantasyland could Honda be called innocent and McClaren guilty.

Several of you have noted how potentially risky this diversification could be, but none of you have mentioned that when you're being chased by canibals jumping off the cliff isn't so risky after all.

Given the world situation Ron Dennis faces a few years ago, he clearly made the decision to spend the rest of his career in an attempt to make certain that McClaren would never again be held hostage by any single entity. Diversification was mandatory, the only question was in what direction to head.

They chose cars, one would assume because of their experience. I would not be surprised if in another few years they moved into aviation, particularly UAV's.

Of course it's risky, anything worth doing is. Many of you are Brits, have you forgotten "Who dares wins."?

AG, your doom and gloom pronouncements concerning bankers are fine, but I think someone should warn you people have been making them since before the invention of the automobile. As for your doom and gloom pronouncements concerning IC automobiles, well all cars are stupid wastes of resource. Let me say that again, ALL cars are stupid wastes. There's an old saying that no new car is as green as the old car you don't have to make.

Cars are dumb, and probably doomed. They're simply unsustainable in the long term, given the massive resources and valuable real estate needed for roads. All cities in hot climates are discovering just how much roads add to ambient heat.

Cars are dumb, and they'll clearly be forced to give way to some combination of mass transit and bicycles. That's a given. And I'll start holding my breath waiting for that day in just a minute. Honest.

There's not one single effing possibility the internal combustion engine won't outlast this car by decades.

Just_a_fan wrote:Not sure I saw the bit where McLaren claimed that the MP4-12C was conceived, intended or designed to 'replace' the F1. The F1 was a car conceived and designed by one controlling mind with one overriding consideration - the ultimate driver's car with minimal weight. It's real problem is that Murray thought that power steering etc. prevented the car from being the ultimate driver's car. The result is a car that is a beast. An old-fashioned supercar in effect.

The MP4-12C is not designed to succeed the F1. There will be a true successor to the F1 at or around 2014 according to various publications.

I managed to get my hands on Mclaren's official press shots of the MP4-12C GTR.

I've resized them down to 1920x1280 in case anyone wants to make wallpapers out of them.

wunderkind wrote:

Just_a_fan wrote:Not sure I saw the bit where McLaren claimed that the MP4-12C was conceived, intended or designed to 'replace' the F1. The F1 was a car conceived and designed by one controlling mind with one overriding consideration - the ultimate driver's car with minimal weight. It's real problem is that Murray thought that power steering etc. prevented the car from being the ultimate driver's car. The result is a car that is a beast. An old-fashioned supercar in effect.

The MP4-12C is not designed to succeed the F1. There will be a true successor to the F1 at or around 2014 according to various publications.

That was my point. Some were suggesting otherwise.

First MP4-12C crash at the ring. hope the driver is ok.

http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/26821 ... gring.html

Plausible deniabilty by McLaren.

Why are they testing a car that is being delivered next week? Surely they would have signed off all the parts for manufacture etc months ago.
This was an attempt to get a headline time and it went awry, IMO.

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Plausible deniabilty by McLaren.

Why are they testing a car that is being delivered next week? Surely they would have signed off all the parts for manufacture etc months ago.
This was an attempt to get a headline time and it went awry, IMO.

Having worked in a comparable environment I find nothing spectacular or unusual in this apart from the fact that Mclaren tests on fridays as usually the track is already open for the public toursut driving then? (I´m not sure how this is organised currently,but you would not expect a proto or "official " testing when the track is open to the public.
The cars and especially the development cars are used for component reliability testing long long long so it is possible we see pre production vehicles on the road even after SOP validating components.That´s true for all OEMs and not just for small batch productions.There is a lot of things going into series production without any significantvalidation done..as parts fail or deficits got detected when it´s already too late to go through the whole validation process .so you get a deviation when you can explain or make plausible to the board the change is necessary and improving the current situation.
I m sure Mclaren faces some even if it´s minor issues in validation as well.And for a early proto ..it could be they were testing some parts for end of life as well ....unfortunate if that was happening at the Galgenkopf...

Maybe they're testing parts ahead of a homologation for a particular part of the world. The first deliveries will probably be Europe and the US. Other parts of the world might still be in development. Could be they were trying a new tyre. Lots of possible explanations.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just one of the development drivers "having a look" to see what the car would do. Ambition exceeding adhesion as Brundle likes to say.

If it were a record attempt I think McLaren would have been honest enough to say "yes we were but it went wrong". They're also likely to want to use a production car rather than a prototype because it has more cachet and is less susceptible to claims that the car was built for the attempt.

Just_a_fan wrote:If it were a record attempt I think McLaren would have been honest enough to say "yes we were but it went wrong".

I dont know, maybe your right. But I cant help feel a 12C in the barriers 1 week prior to launch wouldn't be very helpful in this end of supercar market

Just_a_fan wrote:
However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just one of the development drivers "having a look" to see what the car would do. Ambition exceeding adhesion as Brundle likes to say.

Yup, what I was thinking. Any word on who the driver was or if he is ok?

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote: ...
However, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just one of the development drivers "having a look" to see what the car would do. Ambition exceeding adhesion as Brundle likes to say.

Yup, what I was thinking. Any word on who the driver was or if he is ok?[/quote]

That's xactly what I wanna know as well, if it was my delivery the sob wrecked!

Was this the mistresses ride? I see you as more of an S-Class man X.

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote: I dont know, maybe your right. But I cant help feel a 12C in the barriers 1 week prior to launch wouldn't be very helpful in this end of supercar market

The 458 was catching fire at idle after it was in owners hands, and its sales are not hurting.

Besides, if you want a 12C, you already have a sizable deposit on one.

crashes in the eifel are just normal.AMG Benz losing their wheels due to broken wheelstuds have happened(I know the driver who had the pleasure to survive this)Car development not necesarily has anything to do with what can happen in the field..I often wondered what relevance some endurance testing had to the field tbh and some weaknesses were detected only by chance -due to weather being worse than last year for example....

Giblet wrote:

JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote: I dont know, maybe your right. But I cant help feel a 12C in the barriers 1 week prior to launch wouldn't be very helpful in this end of supercar market

The 458 was catching fire at idle after it was in owners hands, and its sales are not hurting.

Besides, if you want a 12C, you already have a sizable deposit on one.

True. But a rogue loom is less worrying than inherent handling failings. Not saying the 12C has an "inherent issue", just looks bad. Superfluous.