Which is more "F1" Enzo, SLR, McLaren F1

Discussion in 'Car Comparisons' started by VIPER 5, Oct 1, 2004.

  1. please defy me.
     
  2. Enzo is "styled" by Ken Okuyama, who did the engineering, I don't know. But it certainly wasn't Rory Berne, who have designed Ferrari's F1 car since 1997. Gordan Murray, who designed the 15 win out of 16 races McLaren's 1988 F1 car, IS the man who designed the McLaren F1(styled by Peter Steven), from the suspension geometry, aerodynamic requirement, the whole thing....

    Enzo's carbon tub is build by a 3rd party specialist who also builds the tub(and the engine cradle) of the Carrera GT, while McLaren's tub is build in house.... Enzo omitted a lot of "convienence" in the name of weight saving, while still end up being 600 lb heavier than the McLaren.

    What's Enzo's F1 connection? Paddle shifter, yes, but it's about as F1 as a 360 Modena was. Carbon Fibre monocoque? pretty much a standard bragging item now for any supercar....F1 or not. Carbon ceramic brake? Not quite, as F1 car had no concern for the logetivity as a roadcar, so the ceramic shell is not needed on the race car. Active aerodynamic? F1 car are not allowed the active aerodynamic, neither are they allowed the massive venturi tunnel Enzo has. And of course, the nose, which does look like a F1 car's front wing.


    So there you have it...
     
  3. The F50 is as close anyone will ever get to driving an F1 car on the street.
     
  4. uhh sorry, but the 15 out of 16 car (the mclaren mp4/4) was designed by steve nichols... mr. murray was still at brabham at that time, i believe.
     
  5. Man I just don't get it.I thought the SLR was a 6-speed manual. It says at my dads work that it is a 6-speed option. Sorry I read to fast.
     
  6. You are a #$%#ing retard.
     
  7. My bad, however he moved to McLaren at the end of 86 to take on a managerial role of their F1 operation. Then lead the F1 road car program in 89.

    Murray's F1 resume though includes:
    BT46B, the "fan car"
    BT52 Piquet's Championship winner
    BT54 and BT55: The car to carry the 1200bhp BMW I-4....
     
  8. I don't quite understand your argument about styling (if there is one)... Ken Okuyama who was a Pininfarina studio designer and did the styling on the Enzo. Pininfarina which is the world's biggest and most famous car styling studio, works with Ferrari since forever... McLaren F1 was styled by Peter Stevens, a free-lance designer. I believe styling has nothing to do with the cars adaptation of F1 characteristics.

    Gordon Murray was EX-Formula One engineer when he developed the McLaren F1 road car and certainly not the engineer of the 1988 McLaren-Honda. Speaking of Honda reminded me the fact that the "more F1" car McLaren had an engine that had nothing to do with the racing car. Honda refused to build an engine for Murray, so he went to BMW Motorsport. How F1/in house is that?

    Of course Ferrari collaborates with other companies such as Brembo, Magneti Marelli, Bridgestone etc., just like in F1. Enzo project director was the Managing Director of Ferrari Granturismo Amedeo Felisa and the engine, as all Ferrari engines are developed by Paolo Martinelli (Director of Engine Department on F1 and road cars). Enzo as all Ferrari F1 cars was developed at the Fiorano test track. Michael Schumacher ivolved alot in the development of the Enzo and helped setting up the chassis which is as close to F1 you can get. Schumacher and Jean Todt have contributed quite a lot to the development of the Enzo project. That's "F1" enough for me.

    I believe you understand that Enzo would definately weight more than the McLaren right? Enzo has tons of electronics that actually make it a far better performer than the McLaren F1. Also the technology needed to meet crash, rigidity and emissions laws increases the weight of the car, things that when the emission-unfriendly McLaren build F1, didn't had to worry about cause laws were not that strict. Absolutely nothing to do with the cars connection to F1 technology. What has to do with F1 experience is that the Enzo V12 engine is the lightest of all its rivals still producing more power.


    Enzo and F1 connection is about these:

    Paddle shifter. The rear gearbox is coupled directly to the engine by an element that incorporates the engine oil tank, the bevel gear pair, and the self-locking differential. In line with the car's performance targets, the gearbox unit was developed only in a Formula 1 version. While its about as F1 as Modena was, its STILL an F1 technology isn't it?

    Like a Formula 1, Enzo's steering wheel includes a large number of controls (six) on either side, linked to the main vehicle control functions: vehicle lift, reverse, exclusion/re-engagement ASR, integrated Sport/Race strategy, display configuration etc.

    Carbon fibre and aluminium honeycomb composite monocoque IS a Formula 1 derived technology. It makes no difference if a VW Golf is made of it tommorow.

    F1 cars use carbon fibre brake disks just like Enzo. They are supplied by Brembo, Ferrari’s partner in formula 1. I can't see how the lack of ceramic shell is eliminating the similarity in the brakes of the cars.

    Push-rod independent suspension with F1 style arms and struts linkage. The four coil spring-damper units are mounted horizontally on the chassis and operated by push-rod links to the wishbones like F1 cars.

    F1 cylinder head design: "pentroof-type" combustion chamber, with four valves per cylinder, plus inlet and exhaust ducts designed to maximise the exhaust coefficients and combustion speed.

    The lubrication sump is of the F1 wrapround type, incorporating the main bearings and a specific oil recovery circuit to increase efficiency.

    Drive-by-wire and the variable geometry inlet manifold is also borrowed from Formula 1, with a system of small telescopic derivation cones, combined on this V12 application, with variable timing gear with a continuously variable advance on the four camshafts and a high pressure control unit.

    Pointed F1 nose is not simply a decorative add-on as you might think. On Enzo, like F1 cars, the nose is a real functioning part of the car, splitting the air flow into the portions going over and under the body and the portion entering the radiators. Rear diffuser and smoothened underbody is used on Enzo like F1 cars. Enzo emphasize on downforce rather than aerodynamic, like F1 cars. At 300kph, it generates a massive 775kg of downforce. Most of the downforce is contributed by the ground effect diffusers at the bottom of the tail.
    Many other supercars also have similar stuffs, but Enzo’s is far more powerful because its high nose draws a lot of fast air flow towards the diffusers. Thanks to what they learned from Formula 1 racing. Now who said anything about Active aerodynamics? We're looking for similarities here not differences.

    The list goes on (there are many more details in parts and processes that F1 technology applies) but I'm too bored to write it down. That's for the "marketing gimmick" anyway. Wait to see the new F430 for some more F1 technology. Notice that I'm being kind enough not to mention the McLaren connection to F1 in the SLR project.
     
  9. if you have seen the top gear greatest cars in the world episode, there is one scene where the body is off of the mclaren, revealing a chassis that actually does resemble that of an f1 car... or it might have been the f1 car? i havent seen it for about a year... tryin to find an image of it.

    my bad, murray WAS at mclaren... but he didnt design the mp4/4.
     
  10. if you have seen the top gear greatest cars in the world episode, there is one scene where the body is off of the mclaren, revealing a chassis that actually does resemble that of an f1 car... or it might have been the f1 car? i havent seen it for about a year... tryin to find an image of it.

    my bad, murray WAS at mclaren... but he didnt design the mp4/4.
     
  11. Gordan Murray chose the BMW motor after Honda rejected the proposal of a large displacement V12 motor because BMW built his championship winning F1 car's motor, the Brabham BT-52. The engine itself is developed by BMW Motorsport which oversees all the competition engine development including their F1 motor. Incorporating technology such as a magnesium alloy block and lightweight titanium pieces that is still contemperary to the racing engine of today. As well as sharing the inconel exhaust runner(again, aerospace material, the metal they used to make rocket nozzle) like the modern F1 car. I doubt McLaren's V12 is emmission unfriendly as the car not only runs with all the smog equipment(including a titanium muffler that doubles as the rear crash structrue. It complies with not only their contemperary regulation also the revised European regulation. Its only natural that Enzo's progress and the current regulation would mean it would have to be even cleaner.

    McLaren's chassis also passed crash regulation(also was crash tested, in lab and real life). It was one of the best car MIRA ever tested in their crash test.

    Carbon Fibre Monocoque is F1 technology indeed, one that was pioneered by McLaren 20 years ago. Hardly new, and hardly original considering it was adpated from aerospace industry. While it does serves as the "F1" connection for Enzo, it is also used by many other supercars now that it is hardly unique or exclusive that you have to be an F1 team to make one...

    Enzo's electronic development is a testiment of 10 years of progress in the auto industry in the field of vehicle dynamic electronic. Stuff that wasn't even in use in F1 during the time when McLaren was designed. Even though now one might say Enzo's use in adaptive differential/traction control might stem from F1 development, fact of the matter is again, these technology are widely available from various sources that really to draw it as something that's exclusively derived from F1 would be a stretch. Much like if Subaru were to say their AWD used in road going WRX is the same as their WRC active differential. While active damping technology used in Enzo has no use in an actual F1 car since according to Sach, supplier of Ferrari's rotary damper, their damper are not even adjustable on F1 car. It was designed specifically to work with the practically zero wheel travel in the F1.

    While yes Ferrari's electrohydralic gear change is F1 technology(Ferrari also pioneered the use back in the late 80s), it is not really all that "new" or advance any more. Still, it is F1 though.

    Carbon Ceramic brake was developed specifically for road use, its performance characteristic in wear and temperature response is very different from the carbon-carbon brake in F1. And Ferrari is not the first one to adapt its use for a road going car neither.

    F1 car uses pushrod actuated suspension, so does sportscar from years back. The advantage on controlling motion ratio more accurately is the reason why it is adapted by most race cars nowadays. Coilspring dampers are no longer in use by Ferrari since god knows when. F1 car now uses torsion bar and in Ferrari's case, Rotary dampers.

    Again, pointed nose is styled to look like an F1 car, as in reality, if the car was designed to have form follows function, it could look dramatically different while acheving the same result. The fact that Enzo still has front mounted radiator is also very un-F1 like as they have been abandoned since late 70s in F1. The vast utilization of underbody Venturi is no longer practice in F1 as it was banned 15 years ago. So is the active aerodynamic element such as used in Enzo. One couls argue that yes the car is developed with aerodynamic in mind much like a F1 car, in reality the goal is much different. It probably has more in common with 80-90's group C car than F1.

    SLR project is much shallower in scope compare to the original F1 and because it was a Mercedes initiative, much less serious input from the concept of the car.
     
  12. I agree with some things and disagree with others. Anyway the conversation is not about who made it first. It's getting more like "playing with words" than anyhting. I believe we agree that we don't expect Ferrari, McLaren or anyone to build a racing/F1 machine for the road (totaly useless, no profit etc.) IMHO the most ambitious project was the F50 which in the end was sucked by regulations and emissions.
     
  13. ironically that car was probably pretty damn close to build a street legal race car....along with all the bad parts of a street legal race car...
     
  14. In terms of closeness to an F1 car, with regards to design, it is the F50, even though it is not on of the three to choose from.

    The reason being that it is almost a direct decendent of the 1991 Ferrari F1 car. The engine itself comes from the 333SP Le Mans sportscar, and that engine was basicly taken from the 1991 F1 car, merely stroked and rebuilt to be mroe suitable for endrurance racing in the 333SP and then road use in the F50. The car is a 100% carbon fibre monocoque (as is the F1 and enzo),

    However the F50 used the engine as a fully stressed member of the chassis, just like an F1 car. What this means is that the back of the car stops just behind the driver. The engine then bolt onto the back (it doesn't sit on, or in, any part of the car). The rear suspension and bodywork then connect to the engine itself. Basicly, you can't take the engine out of the car, it IS the central part of the car chassis istelf. That is total F1.

    The McLaren f1 was designed more as a Le Mans style sportscar, and as such, went on to win Le Mans in its very first attempt. The enzo is also built more along these lines.

    The F50 was never ment to be the ultimate road car, it was ment to be an F1 car with closed wheels and two seats. And thats what it was.
     
  15. Well said. I also know that Ferrari's intention was to rev F50 to 11.000 rpm, just like 333SP (I think it redlined at 13.000 rpm or so). Now that would be amazing... Unfortunately they were forced to redline a little over 8.000 due to emissions regulations...
     
  16. I am a huge Mac fan... but the Enzo has the technology and is based more off an F1 layout, and since F1 cars seem to be based more off technology than driver involvement (which I believe the Mac has more of) my vote goes to Ferrari. I would still rather have a McLaren.

    Maybe an Enzo with Mac performance???
     

Share This Page