F1technical.net

deus1066 wrote:Also on the Mclaren website they've got some fancy graphics and information about the car: http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/uk/default.aspx

That is the website

It sure looks like the intercoolers are in front and the water-radiator are on the hips. A strange location for intercoolers that, I always thought that you wanted the shortest possible way from the compressor-side to the intake manifold in order to minimize lag?

Yeah I was under that impression too.

But if you think about it, there are 2 ways to do it. You can either mount the intercoolers at back and the coolers at front or like in this case mount the intercoolers at front and the coolers at the rear. The approach McLaren has chosed saves some weight because it doesn´t need all that long heavy piping that the front mounted cooler would require.

At Koenigsegg they use front mounted cooler I think

I guess you need piping to the front for the intercoolers anyway, but the water-filled radiators is much heavier than the intercoolers, why you probably want them midships for weight-distribution.

Yeah you need piping for the intercoolers too but those pipes are filled with air and not water. That was my point

Obviously.

vasia wrote: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.

Wrong comparison.

The 12C is not in the Enzo segment. Its more a 458 competitor.

McLaren anounced there will be 2 new models apart from the 12C. I expect a supercar beyond the 500.000USD and the other is rather a mystery to me.

ringo wrote: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.

Thats it.

Belatti wrote: Wrong comparison.

The 12C is not in the Enzo segment. Its more a 458 competitor.

McLaren anounced there will be 2 new models apart from the 12C. I expect a supercar beyond the 500.000USD and the other is rather a mystery to me.

Fair enough. Compared to the 458, this looks quite boring and plain, even though I don't like the 458 myself.

I'm sure many on this forum prefer the focused philosophy of the 12C, the whole idea of "form follows function", but that is not how most supercar buyers think.

In reality, buying a supercar is as much of an emotional decision as it is a logical one. That is the main reason why Ferraris and Lambos sell so well, because they get people emotional and stir the senses.

I'm sure the 12C will have it's fans, but it won't get the same attention on the road as say a 458 will, and with a supercar that does count for something.

McLaren is in-fact developing a car above the 12C, so I would hope for McLaren's sake that it does not look as cold, clinical, and sterile as the 12C. I would hope that it looks at least as exotic and exciting as the F1.

I think the MP4-12C is an professional's car more than the Saint Tropez poser's, doubt if the sales are going to be much of a problem really.

maybe it's not a big news but... quite recently I got an article stating Gordon Murray is going to start working on supercar as he is a little but disgusted by the way the supercars industry is following. he is aiming on kind of F1 of the 21st century.

This cars engine still has got me thinking. Then the rumours of "Scuderia McLaren" and stuff...
I would love to see McLaren following that "pure racing and nothing else" path.

Belatti wrote:This cars engine still has got me thinking. Then the rumours of "Scuderia McLaren" and stuff...
I would love to see McLaren following that "pure racing and nothing else" path.

It has been reported that McLaren does not have its own engine-design facilities, why the 12C's powerplant was developed by Cosworth Automotive, owned by Mahle, not to be confused by Cosworth Racing, who builds the F1 engines and is owned by Kalkhoven and Forsythe.

Belatti wrote:This cars engine still has got me thinking. Then the rumours of "Scuderia McLaren" and stuff...
I would love to see McLaren following that "pure racing and nothing else" path.

I think it is all an ego thing of Ron Dennis. He wants to be the British Enzo Ferrari. He tends to forget that a copy of a business plan is even more difficult to make successfull than a copy of a racing car.

Ron Dennis should indeed know better then going ahead with his plans without consulting xpertise on the subject.

My assumption is ,if the two cooling packages are for Charge cooling this is more looking like a fluid cooler than an air to air heat exchanger ,it is really missing big crossection in and outlets .So they might use a air /fluid heat exchanger (possibly Laminova type) in the inlet tract to transfer heat to the fluid which they cool at the front of the car...
Other possibility would be that one of the two cooling packages at the front serves the AC ? or oil cooling?
Nevertheless the split front rear plus left right will not help in terms of weight and efficiecy unfortunatelly ,as we can clearly see 4off quite big electric fans in the car ,that must be something like 8 kilos plus around 1000 Watts electrical power
plus cabling ...I feel in that area they might have left potential untapped...