why is this better than a McLaren?

Discussion in '2002 Koenigsegg CC 8S' started by paganirules, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Just because this CC 8S pulls more Lateral G's than the McLaren does not mean it handles better.

    You cannot take two stats and declare a winner. If you want a winner, take them on a track, and THEN see who wins. Even THAT is not a fair comparison.

    The McLaren has certain disadvantages compared to this car.
    The McLaren was developed under strict regulations to be permitted to race.

    It was designed to win at LeMans. A track that greatly favours low drag aerodynamics. Therefore the F1 sacrifices downforce to lessen drag. The CC is developed solely as a road car, SOLELY to beat the McLaren road car.

    The McLaren road car is NOT tuned for the track. In fact, it is delivered with NO rear wing. The road car is balanced with a steady understeer, which makes it a predictable and safe car to drive. The McLaren GTR (I'm sure) pulls a lot more than the road car's 0.86G.

    This car has a 4.7L SC engine. LM rules specify a 4.0L engine if supercharged or turbocharged. Another advantage for the CC.

    The simple fact is, the two cars are really just not comparable. Just as you cannot compare an F1 car to a LMP car, and say one is better.

    The McLaren is a race car, converted for the road.
    This CC 8S is a road car, made to beat that McLaren road car.

    McLaren set the standard.
    Tell me this, is it easier to set a standard? You have nothing previous to aim at.
    If all you're trying to do is beat that standard, you know exactly what you have to do.

    (personally, I'd pick the big Mac jsut cuz I like V12's)<!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    I pretty much agree with every thing you have said, and despite the title of the thread you did present a constructive critique, and I thank you for that. I disagree on one issue, that the McLaren was not perpose built to be a race car. It may have been designed with the track in mind, but the primary goal held in mind by the people who made it (as stated by them by the way) was to make the greatest roadcar ever.
     
  3. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Jointedman</i>
    <b>I pretty much agree with every thing you have said, and despite the title of the thread you did present a constructive critique, and I thank you for that. I disagree on one issue, that the McLaren was not perpose built to be a race car. It may have been designed with the track in mind, but the primary goal held in mind by the people who made it (as stated by them by the way) was to make the greatest roadcar ever.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Correct , the Mclaren f1 is greatest roadcar ever. This car in not better than a Mclaren f1 who ever thought so , did not know anything about the Mclaren.
     
  4. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    I agree
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    lateral g's is a good indicator of handeling...after all the faster you take a turn the more g's your car is under...the more it can take the faster the turn. Lateral g's together with slalom tells you which car is inded the better handeler.<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    The F1 was designed not to be a track car. Gordon Murphy, the F1 designer, told ron dennis, the McLaren head man, "I am fighting every instinct not to make this is race car, so tommorow you better not come up to me and ask for a race car." The whole suspension is designed for the road, very little camber change and lots of lots of travel. The F1 only has slightly positive downforce, once again for road use.

    I think the CC is more of a F50 competitor. The CC seems to be a very good track car.
     
  7. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    i would have to agree that the cc is made for the road and the MC is made for the race tack but i must say i think i would take the MC because it has that heratrige that the CC just does not have<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    like my pic??<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    Paganirules, you are a bit confused. You first said that the Mclaren F1 was developed with the track in mind but then you say that the roadcar and was not developed with the track in mind. And don't tell me things like to reduce drag they didn't put a rear wing. A rear wing (for downforce) is probably is more important. How comfortable the car is to handle, how much grip it has and how quickly it brakes all depends a lot on downforce (not completely). The designers would have designed the Mclaren F1 such that even if a spoiler was added it wouldn't have made all that much of a difference. So it is unlikely that they ommited the spoiler to reduce drag.
    The Mclaren was an all out sportscar. It didn't go for simple compromises. And g's do have quite a bit to do with handling so there is no reason for the designers to keep the g's down. Low g's have little to do with more predictable handling though your point on "safe understeer" was totally sensible. And the Koeniggsegg is an awesome car but I won't stick out my neck and vote for either of the two cars.
    I am sorry if i have been a little harsh but i just found through your thread that you were slightly confused.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  10. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    For everyone's information, The Mclaren LM pulls 1.20g. Mainly Because It is a detuned track car, and is barley legal for road. It's also faster than This site says it is. Go to mclaren's website and one of the articles says this car topped out at 243mph, due to a heavily modified gear ratio , In a straight line.The 97 Lemans cars handling is unknown,Due to the fact no one is willing to test them.If this sounds unbelivible, I don't blame you, But keep in mind the Panoz GT1 pulls 1.52g. I would Like to say the koingsegg is the best car since the Mclaren, And a formidable competetor to it. <!-- Signature -->
     
  11. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Madhav</i>
    <b>Paganirules, you are a bit confused. You first said that the Mclaren F1 was developed with the track in mind but then you say that the roadcar and was not developed with the track in mind. And don't tell me things like to reduce drag they didn't put a rear wing. A rear wing (for downforce) is probably is more important. How comfortable the car is to handle, how much grip it has and how quickly it brakes all depends a lot on downforce (not completely). The designers would have designed the Mclaren F1 such that even if a spoiler was added it wouldn't have made all that much of a difference. So it is unlikely that they ommited the spoiler to reduce drag.
    The Mclaren was an all out sportscar. It didn't go for simple compromises. And g's do have quite a bit to do with handling so there is no reason for the designers to keep the g's down. Low g's have little to do with more predictable handling though your point on "safe understeer" was totally sensible. And the Koeniggsegg is an awesome car but I won't stick out my neck and vote for either of the two cars.
    I am sorry if i have been a little harsh but i just found through your thread that you were slightly confused.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    "Simple" So you are saying ground plane shear suspension is simple. If you knew about the F1, you would see why the car is designed the way it is. The designer, Gordon Murphy, was a amazing F1 racing car designer and knew what he was doing. He has a excelent understanding of car design, so if he did not think a wing was needed, it was not. The car was designed to drive from London to southern France in complete comfort, but perform excellent on the road. You do not need a 1g of grip on the road, if you are stupid enough to do that. You just need a car that handles predictably, that is the reason for the lack of grip.
     
  12. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    I like the beauty of this latest Koenigg development. I personally think that McLarens are ugly wastes of time, but damn those things can move. In overall, McLaren loses to this car because I would rather have a Koenigg.
     
  13. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    Mclaren is sweet
    Koenigsegg is sweet
    Porsche is sweet

    im done.<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    OK, please just get one thing right. The designer of the McLaren F1 is not Gordon Murphy, but Gordon Murray - see the difference in the surname there?!

    As an aside - the McLaren will always be the benchmark to which others must live up, no other car can lay claim to that.<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    First off, half of you need typing lessons. It seems that somewhere in your extensively long paragraphs some of you actually have some points worth mentioning. The problem is that you type so shitty or construct your sentences so poorly I can't understand what half those points are. As for which car is better it would help to know what each car weighs. Next both of these cars rely on the aerodynamics of their body shape and air that passes UNDER the car for the majority of there downforce and handeling ability. I say this in reference not only to the F1 but also to the CC 8S because it says that the wing is an option. Why would the maufacturer do anything that would signifigantly reduce the cars handeling ability if it was trying to take down a car like the F1. For my last point, because I am tired, everyone makes such a big deal about all these new cars ( this one and the Bugatti Veyron for instance) that are going to beat the McLaren F1. Newsflash people, the F1 is 5 years old. These new cars have some serioud advantages that were simply not available, technologically or economically, back when the McLaren was built. Things like the latest ultra light weight composites or Quad turbo V-16's. And yet despite all these new technologies the best these cars can do is compete with the McLaren and MAYBE beat it, just BARELY. Oh and by the way, as a closer let me leave u with this, cars like the CC 8S and the Veyron are both car sporting forced induction systems while the F1 is naturally aspirated ( no turbo or supercharger for those who are unfamiliar with the term). All McLaren has to do is add a turbo to increase top end pull and provide more torque to get it moving faster and this debate over the "better" car ends REAL fast. A loser sees a car for what it is, a winner sees a car for what it could be.
     
  16. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    Nah, Kornigsegg all the way.
     
  17. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    you should really check out some details because the mclaren f1 has a rear spoiler that comes up when he hits 100 kph.
    and also the mclaren was introduced as a road car so i think it was designed to be a road car.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  18. Re: why is this better than a McLaren?

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from likezcarz</i>
    <b>. A loser sees a car for what it is, a winner sees a car for what it could be.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    i think a loser is the manufacturer of a car that doesn't give it its full potential so it could be a winner , and one more detail the koenigsegg may be coming in another version with an 1000+ hp revised ferarri engine (see koenigsegg homepage for more details )so it can achieve its purpose what was to be the fastest road car on earth now.
    <!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page