Discussion
Technically yes, but ahead of it's time, no. No-one else actually wants to spend 5 years developing a carbon Monocell like Mclaren.
The Mercedes S-Class has pioneered more practical systems. First car to to feature ABS, airbags, sat nav, parking sensors. All now commonplace in "average" cars.
The Mercedes S-Class has pioneered more practical systems. First car to to feature ABS, airbags, sat nav, parking sensors. All now commonplace in "average" cars.
Edited by astroarcadia on Sunday 13th October 15:22
woppum said:
Why is it so far ahead of everything else ? News to me.
Yawn, come on Wopps, WTF have you been?? On any objective measure you care to look at its ahead. The only thing other cars win at is 'emotion'. Thats the adjective you turn to when everything else wont let you write what Edited by GT3ZZZ on Sunday 13th October 22:01
Am thinking some of the VVTi Hondas were pretty amazing, and some of the Hybrids are incredible technology. Not sure that the McLaren offers any new technology....maybe new designs, but carbon fibre has been around for decades and it doesn't have anything 'out of this world'. The F1 was pretty cutting edge. Forty years ago electric windows, a/c, multi valves and radio cassettes were cutting edge, as were electric seats and self levelling suspension, ABS, EDC, and the list goes on....airbags, sat nav, blue tooth, PAS, central locking, keyless entry, and then one moves onto engine parts and intelligent cylinder shutdown and hybrids.
Always good to see talented engineers working hard to magic new toys for those of us who call themselves petrolheads but what actually is there on the Mac that is pioneering? Haven't we seen carbon monococque, pushrod suspension, rear wheel steer, and active ride before? Admittedly not all in one car!
GT3ZZZ said:
woppum said:
Why is it so far ahead of everything else ? News to me.
Yawn, come on Wopps, WTF have you been?? On any objective measure you care to look at its ahead. The only thing other cars win at is 'emotion'. Thats the adjective you turn to when everything else wont let you write what Edited by GT3ZZZ on Sunday 13th October 22:01
I understand it's a far fetched analogy, but I'm sure Honda could make an assimo style robot that would cook your dinner, clean your house, make great company, satisfy you in many ways, but if you don't fall for it through something as unmeasurable/unquantifiable as emotion, you'd never want it as your wife or fall in love with it
The mclaren appears to be trying to hard to fit the bill
graeme4130 said:
Honda could make an assimo style robot that would cook your dinner, clean your house, make great company, satisfy you in many ways, but if you don't fall for it through something as unmeasurable/unquantifiable as emotion, you'd never want it as your wife or fall in love with it
Woah there tiger, don't be too hasty - tell me more about this robot
belleair302 said:
carbon fibre has been around for decades
While carbon fibre has been around for decades, it's use in every day cars has been prohibited by the costs involved. There was an interesting programme about the McLaren on BBC2 last night (should be on the iplayer if you missed it), which stated that the carbon fibre monocoque for the McLaren F1 road car took 4000 hours to manufacture. The MP4/12C monocoque took 4 hours. This related to a cost saving of almost £500k.
In that respect, I believe the 12C is in some ways a game-changer - the first car with a mass-produced (mass-produce-able?) carbon fibre chassis?
Other than that, it also has the torque steer system, which was banned from their F1 cars, and which I don't quite understand!
slf2012 said:
While carbon fibre has been around for decades, it's use in every day cars has been prohibited by the costs involved.
There was an interesting programme about the McLaren on BBC2 last night (should be on the iplayer if you missed it), which stated that the carbon fibre monocoque for the McLaren F1 road car took 4000 hours to manufacture. The MP4/12C monocoque took 4 hours. This related to a cost saving of almost £500k.
What doesn't seem so clear are the costs of repairing damaged cars, does anybody know?There was an interesting programme about the McLaren on BBC2 last night (should be on the iplayer if you missed it), which stated that the carbon fibre monocoque for the McLaren F1 road car took 4000 hours to manufacture. The MP4/12C monocoque took 4 hours. This related to a cost saving of almost £500k.
When my Murcielago SV's simple little front splitter got damaged it was £15k for a new one, and the factory said they would disown any car with this part being repaired instead as it is part of the aero. Cue lots of arguments with insurance companies before it all got resolved.
Heaven knows the shenanigans if chassis repairs were involved instead.
I wonder if this is really why we haven't seen carbon used for mass market chassis before now. Have they sorted out a way of effective low cost repairs?
The only way I can imagine they could repair significant chassis damage would be to remove all the other components (effectively stripping the car) and put it back in the 'mould' or wherever it is they in ject the resin to make it.
I do wonder though, would a significant chassis repair requiring such drastic measures not mormally mean a car is written off?
I believe small repairs (on non-structural components) could be made manually, but again, it might make a car unsalvageable.
I do wonder though, would a significant chassis repair requiring such drastic measures not mormally mean a car is written off?
I believe small repairs (on non-structural components) could be made manually, but again, it might make a car unsalvageable.
A vote here for 'game changer'. Philosophically this seems to be the first time a supercar manufacturer has concentrated on building the car they want to build more than what they believe the customer wants. Arrogance perhaps?
The active chassis, carbon tub, 'programmable' turbo engine, airbrake etc. They have concentrated on making the car go very fast indeed at this price point and although none of these concepts are new on their own, taken together in the 'entry V8 supercar' market, they are game changing in my view.
Maybe no one else follows, but I don't think so. I'm not convinced Ferrari will be happy with the 'more emotional but slower' tag for the 458.
In 5 years time, when more product and more customers have become part of the McLaren brand, I think journos will look back and think "exactly what was so unemotional about the 12C?" I also think they're beginning to look good value and a number have begun to sell in the £130s with decent spec.
I would be interested in a good value coupe, except perhaps that I like convertibles, especially when there is no loss to the driving experience because of the carbon tub.
The active chassis, carbon tub, 'programmable' turbo engine, airbrake etc. They have concentrated on making the car go very fast indeed at this price point and although none of these concepts are new on their own, taken together in the 'entry V8 supercar' market, they are game changing in my view.
Maybe no one else follows, but I don't think so. I'm not convinced Ferrari will be happy with the 'more emotional but slower' tag for the 458.
In 5 years time, when more product and more customers have become part of the McLaren brand, I think journos will look back and think "exactly what was so unemotional about the 12C?" I also think they're beginning to look good value and a number have begun to sell in the £130s with decent spec.
I would be interested in a good value coupe, except perhaps that I like convertibles, especially when there is no loss to the driving experience because of the carbon tub.
astroarcadia said:
Technically yes, but ahead of it's time, no. No-one else actually wants to spend 5 years developing a carbon Monocell like Mclaren.
The Mercedes S-Class has pioneered more practical systems. First car to to feature ABS, airbags, sat nav, parking sensors. All now commonplace in "average" cars.
The only thing from that list they invented was the airbag. Mercedes are very good at making other people's things better and/or marketing them well to make people think they were the first.The Mercedes S-Class has pioneered more practical systems. First car to to feature ABS, airbags, sat nav, parking sensors. All now commonplace in "average" cars.
Edited by astroarcadia on Sunday 13th October 15:22
As for the McLaren, Dallara have been able to mass produce carbon tubs for years, hence the X-Bow developed with KTM. In one way it's unadventurous as the engine isn't a stressed member. And AFAIK the work was done with a specialist company, not entirely in-house?
The suspension is innovative but has been seen before (i.e. Kinetic). The body is fibreglass. The engine is a monster but more sophisticated than other turbo units? Not really, the GT-R's is amazing, has the racing provenance and it's available for half the price. Gearbox, brakes? Existing tech.
It's very impressive when all put together in one car with such vision but there is nothing truly new and in fact outsourcing is the key way to get costs down. Ferrari have shown with the 458 that materials alone aren't the be-all and end-all...
LukeyLikey said:
A vote here for 'game changer'. Philosophically this seems to be the first time a supercar manufacturer has concentrated on building the car they want to build more than what they believe the customer wants. Arrogance perhaps?
The active chassis, carbon tub, 'programmable' turbo engine, airbrake etc. They have concentrated on making the car go very fast indeed at this price point and although none of these concepts are new on their own, taken together in the 'entry V8 supercar' market, they are game changing in my view.
Maybe no one else follows, but I don't think so. I'm not convinced Ferrari will be happy with the 'more emotional but slower' tag for the 458.
In 5 years time, when more product and more customers have become part of the McLaren brand, I think journos will look back and think "exactly what was so unemotional about the 12C?" I also think they're beginning to look good value and a number have begun to sell in the £130s with decent spec.
I would be interested in a good value coupe, except perhaps that I like convertibles, especially when there is no loss to the driving experience because of the carbon tub.
As per the norm...you are out of the loop....no offence...The active chassis, carbon tub, 'programmable' turbo engine, airbrake etc. They have concentrated on making the car go very fast indeed at this price point and although none of these concepts are new on their own, taken together in the 'entry V8 supercar' market, they are game changing in my view.
Maybe no one else follows, but I don't think so. I'm not convinced Ferrari will be happy with the 'more emotional but slower' tag for the 458.
In 5 years time, when more product and more customers have become part of the McLaren brand, I think journos will look back and think "exactly what was so unemotional about the 12C?" I also think they're beginning to look good value and a number have begun to sell in the £130s with decent spec.
I would be interested in a good value coupe, except perhaps that I like convertibles, especially when there is no loss to the driving experience because of the carbon tub.
LongLiveTazio said:
The only thing from that list they invented was the airbag. Mercedes are very good at making other people's things better and/or marketing them well to make people think they were the first.
As for the McLaren, Dallara have been able to mass produce carbon tubs for years, hence the X-Bow developed with KTM. In one way it's unadventurous as the engine isn't a stressed member. And AFAIK the work was done with a specialist company, not entirely in-house?
The suspension is innovative but has been seen before (i.e. Kinetic). The body is fibreglass. The engine is a monster but more sophisticated than other turbo units? Not really, the GT-R's is amazing, has the racing provenance and it's available for half the price. Gearbox, brakes? Existing tech.
It's very impressive when all put together in one car with such vision but there is nothing truly new and in fact outsourcing is the key way to get costs down. Ferrari have shown with the 458 that materials alone aren't the be-all and end-all...
Have you driven one ?As for the McLaren, Dallara have been able to mass produce carbon tubs for years, hence the X-Bow developed with KTM. In one way it's unadventurous as the engine isn't a stressed member. And AFAIK the work was done with a specialist company, not entirely in-house?
The suspension is innovative but has been seen before (i.e. Kinetic). The body is fibreglass. The engine is a monster but more sophisticated than other turbo units? Not really, the GT-R's is amazing, has the racing provenance and it's available for half the price. Gearbox, brakes? Existing tech.
It's very impressive when all put together in one car with such vision but there is nothing truly new and in fact outsourcing is the key way to get costs down. Ferrari have shown with the 458 that materials alone aren't the be-all and end-all...
What performance car gets even remotely close in terms of ride comfort, latitude existent in the suspension settings and hence overall breadth of functionality ?
At the one end its more supple and compliant than a Lotus Evora (which is damm good going). At the other end, posts a 1.16 at Dunsfold. This is no easy achievement IMO.
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff