A great Mclaren F1 LM article by Gordon Murray

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by rabbitl1, May 11, 2007.

  1. yes, i can't believe how fanboy he is, he can't avoid talking shit about lamborghinis, most of all when no one asked him
     
  2. "Italians may like Lamborghini but they didn't take him serious then nor do they now"
    i'm italian, and i can say that italians loves ferrari and lamborghinis so STFU, you know what i think? that you hate so much lamborghini cause you are scared of it, actualy lamborghini is a big killer for ferrari market so you need to talk shit about it to feel better.
     
  3. FNAF, some evidence, please.
     
  4. #79 Guibo, May 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    It had a different exhaust, too, if it's the same one I'm thinking about:
    http://videos.streetfire.net/category/Ferrari/0/5522467c-d517-4217-af9b-9920003a7589.htm
     
  5. In the McLaren book, Driving Ambition, they indeed list the DRY weight of the 1997 longtail F1 GT at 1120 kg. Expressed explicitly as "dry weight."
    Through '95-97, the book lists weights from 915kg to 1050 kg for the regular GTR.
    The book lists the curb weight for the F1 at 1140 kg. I'm wondering why there is a discrepancy between this and Autocar's 1138 kg. If McLaren fed the weight information to Autocar, why did they print "1138 kg including half tank", instead of just printing 1140 kg, the dry weight?
    I still don't see the connection between racing and the roadcars: like I said, the manufacturers always try to undercut by large margin the minimum weight, and then ballast as necessary (which can improve balance for a particular track) up to that minimum.
     
  6. The possibility remains that the F1 that did the 240 mph run didn't have standard gearing. That is the implication when considering the top speeds as found by Flemke and R&T (Andretti said it felt like it needed another gear). For a really legitimate top speed run, IMO, there should be a set of acceleration runs to rule out the possibility of non-standard gearing. None were given in the F1 top speed test, nor was the top speed verified in the Autocar test. Thus, legitimate questions remain.
    We do know that the F1 required bumping of its rev limiter for the 240 mph figure, so it wasn't completely stock.
     
  7. #82 GTRFreak, May 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    The McLaren cant be that bad in the handling department if it can match the Carrera GT and Enzo on the track.

    1 Radical SR3 1300 1.17.10
    2 Caterham R500 Evo 1:19.00
    3= Ariel Atom 1:19.60
    3= Caterham CSR 260 1:19.60
    5 Dax Rush MC 1:19.70
    6 Porsche Carrera GT 1:20.20
    7 McLaren F1 1:21.20
    8 Ferrari Enzo 1:21.30
    9 Litchfield Type-25 1:22.25
    10 Lotus Exige S 1:22.4

    Does anyone have scans of this article from Evo?
    http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/204717/fastest_ever_track_test.html
     
  8. One of my first supercar buys if I struck it rich woul be F1 chassis #73. The F1 is gold, and I'm glad I was able to share a decade with it.
     
  9. As far as I know

    Mclaren F1 was...

    1. The first production road car employs full carbon fibre monocoque chassis.

    2. The first production road car employs magnesium components at engine, body and alloy rims.

    3. The first production road car have positive downforce at high speed.

    4. The first production road car employs active aerodynamic system to increase downforce.

    If anybody experts can supplement the information, please help.

    Tell me, if Mclaren F1 was not a benchmark, tell me who it was.
     
  10. Can you explain #3 a little better
     
  11. Around 120kg(?) of pure downforce at high speed but I don't know how fast.
     
  12. Yet the car used by Andretti was a stock model.
    Also the car that made 240+whatever mph at Ehra was an XP so it doesnt count.

    About Flemke`s car in his own words, with a different exhaust (and probably some other gizmos) he reckons that has around 680bhp.
    His words, not mine.

     
  13. You`re an idiot and you know it <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>

    Macca is neutral just like F40, it doesn`t generate lift (although if you read/watch the tests things are not like that) nor downforce.

    The fact that Andretti said that it`s extremely aerodinamically unstable it`s another solid proof about it`s lack of downforce.
     
  14. #89 Mikael, May 15, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    I have it, you just don`t deserve it because you don`t have common sense. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  15. Why have the indies flooded Euro forums?
     
  16. Also I have some McLaren's materials (books, magazines..) and I have noticed the discrepancy also. But I don't believe that the road car is 1070 - 1100 DRY Kgs for the global structural conformation compared to F40. For many points. And a 266 Kgs 6.1l 12 cilinders engine is included also(68 kgs more than F50's engine). F1 has some comfort particulars also. 1138 is truer for me.
    Structurally F40 is thinner, also Clarkson say this in his video. Also say it seems lighter. The chassis is completely 117 Kgs and only 46 Kgs is the body. Doors 3 Kgs I remember. How can is possible the road car F1 80-50 Kgs dry weight lighter? Sure not. In any case we have a up load weight of 1488 Kg compare to 1430 of F40.
    3 person in F1, only two on F40. It's a good comparison.
    The GTR'97 is ligther for some construction lighter points, a small engine and a ligther gearbox.
     
  17. #92 F40 Le Mans, May 16, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    http://www.qv500.com/mclarenf1p4.php

    Look here. GT is 20kg lighter than the stock F1, so if your book 1120 KG is DRY weight, 1140 KG is a DRY confirm for the road car.
     
  18. "How can is possible the road car F1 80-50 Kgs dry weight lighter?"

    If you have the F1 book, then surely you must know the lengths they went to in order to make every part as light as possible. Gordon Murray lamented how automakers don't realize how much weight they can save simply by choosing proper bolt heads sizes, washer thicknesses, etc. He "scrutinized every last nut, bolt and washer." I mean, just look at the shift lever mechanism, with resin knob and aluminum shaft, sections of which are milled out to save weight. The F40's is, what, steel? And probably carried over from the 288 GTO. With which it shares many basic components, right? Tubular steel control arms, whereas the components on the F1 are aluminum. Titanium toolkit (and lugwrench machined from billet aluminum). Custom tires subject to strict weight requirements. Small-diameter F1-style carbon clutch. All of these sweated details add up, I'm sure.
    Does the payload include the luggage? There's more of that in the F1 than in the F40. Also, the F1 is noticeably shorter and narrower.

    Look at this page of the Autocar test and note the entries marked: "*manufacturer's claimed figure". It applies to some weights of the cars, but not others. Meaning I think they weighed the F1 (and some of those cars) on a scale. Which would also explain the "including half tank" bit.

    From the F1 book:
    "Since Gordon's target weight had been dry weight - with 65kg to be added as 85 liters of fuel, plus c.35kg for lubricants, radiator water, hydraulic fluids, washer bottle - the McLaren F1's kerb weight would approach 1100kg.
    Now, the completed 'XP4' weighed-in dry at 1067kg painted, with sound proofing. Gordon finally conceded production-standard kerb weight around 1200kg, dry weight 1100kg."

    Applying some math:
    65kg/85L = .76kg/L (I think it's officially .74, but close enough)
    1/2 tank of the F1 = 45L
    45L x .76kg/L = 34kg
    34kg of fuel + 35kg for other fluids + 1067 dry weight = 1136kg.
    That is 2kg shy of Autocar's figure, 4kg shy of the F1's curb weight listed in the back of the book. Full tank should be about 1170 kg.
     
  19. Quote from Guibo:
    "If you have the F1 book, then surely you must know the lengths they went to in order to make every part as light as possible. Gordon Murray lamented how automakers don't realize how much weight they can save simply by choosing proper bolt heads sizes, washer thicknesses, etc. He "scrutinized every last nut, bolt and washer." I mean, just look at the shift lever mechanism, with resin knob and aluminum shaft, sections of which are milled out to save weight. The F40's is, what, steel? And probably carried over from the 288 GTO. With which it shares many basic components, right? Tubular steel control arms, whereas the components on the F1 are aluminum. Titanium toolkit (and lugwrench machined from billet aluminum). Custom tires subject to strict weight requirements. Small-diameter F1-style carbon clutch. All of these sweated details add up, I'm sure."

    That's the thing that makes Mc Laren F1 so special. They don't want to ruin the weight nor the comfort and everyday driveability- they ruin the price and production costs instead. I love it!
     
  20. So you think that the true weight is 1100 Kgs DRY for the Road car. Probably, but are Murray's preproduction words also probably.
    1067 Kgs for the XP4. Ok, but are we sure that he can really did a 'production road car' exact 1100 for example?
    Remember XP4 and XP5 are prototype cars also.

    I have Brooklands book, and some german and italian articles of f1.

    Other dark point, is the engine between XP4 and XP5. Books said that Autocar's figures are with 580hp engine while XP5 has the same performance with a full 627hp fitted for Autozeitung test. it declared 1138 kg 'leergewicht' also. In my Autocapital italian article, the writer ask him, why that XP4 engine is 580 in England and transformed a 627hp engine immediately out of England. why?

    Murray said too many words in that period, some true, some false.
    The 'dark truth' is that XP4 had already a 627 engine fitted, and probably he has not maintained weight exact promise, for me.


     
  21. That is all possible. However, I think the there is not much difference in weight between XP4 and XP5 (the one closest to production-spec). Because from the initial design phase using computer modeling, they had already taken into account what was needed for durability, European safety legislation, etc. XP2 prototype went and did the 30-mph barrier crash, and passed with flying colors, able to drive away. McLaren's composites guy was so confident of the outcome beforehand, he didn't even bother to attend the crash test. Also, as development went on, there were running changes to the prototypes, not just to the latest one. It is interesting to note that the German test replicates the weight as seen by Autocar. If they were to take official McLaren literature, surely it should read 1140kg?

    Again, the weight matches closely to:
    Autocar's test
    McLaren literature
    Calculations based on Murray's words in Driving Ambition.
    The weight does not match closely with only the R&T test, that one using a US-spec, converted car. US-spec F40 is heavier than Euro-spec F40, yes? And even that car was quick considering heat and elevation.

    As for power and performance differences between XP4 and that German XP5 test...the XP5 test is largely the same, yes. But do keep in mind that McLaren development driver Jonathan Palmer was behind the wheel of XP4 in Autocar. Surely, he knows the intricacies of perfecting shifts and using the F1's super-light carbon-carbon clutch.
    That still leaves the question of which McLaren F1 did the 1/4 mile in the Best Motoring video at 11.0 (vs Autocar's 11.1).
     
  22. Why? Because I dont agree with your shitty opinion on the F1?
     
  23. In my opinion the 512 TR can't really compete with the other cars on that list, it just falls way short in term of performance.
     
  24. Agreed. It is simply outgunned, but acquits itself quite well overall. Autocar really enjoyed it, and reading their original roadtest (in which it was awarded 4.5 out of 5 stars, same as the XJ220), it was something of a benchmark car for them up to that time.

    "The result is the finest engine in the world...has as pure and inspirational a note as any tester here can remember...the bark turns to a bellow of extraordinary clarity and simplicity as the car is hurled bodily down the road.
    the steering is so precise and the handling so faithful that you can place the car to the millimetre...the car seems to shrink around you.
    In keeping with its brief to eat continents wholesale, the 512’s chassis provides a fine ride; the springing is firm, but exquisitely damped."

    Very high praise. On the other hand, the XJ's engine "sounds awful at its 1000rpm idle, more akin to a pail of nuts and bolts being poured through a Magimix than a pukka race-bred engine." Awesome power and handling though.
     
  25. and the XPs dont count because? because you dont feel like it thats why.
     

Share This Page