I still think the F1 sucks (updated for dec. 2k6)

[bmagni]

Originally Posted by blah Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by phatbimmer You know what sucks that none of us will ever get a chance to own either an F1, Veyron or Ferrari Enzo LOL! F1 ownz you 8) Also it took the world a decade to make another astonishing car, VW just has too much time on there hands, perhaps if they put the same time and effort into fixing there electronic problems VW's wouldn't be so frowned upon. Same goes for the rest of the Germans. how do you know no one owns or will ever own one, do you know all our finances and bank accounts ??? and again with the same BS that it took 10 years to make a car as great as the F1... yeah right, great in which way ?? top speed ?? no one cares about top speed, if top speed was the goal, we would have seen something faster than a Mclaren long ago... BS it took the bugatti so long to even get close to the F1s record let alone break it, same witht he Koneigsegg.

no one cares about making the car with the highest top speed...
while the Enzo was being developed, they wanted it to reach more than 400 but it sacrificed other performance figures of the car, and they didn't go just for top speed...
Even Gordon Murray was surprised that after the F1, Ferrari released the F50, which in no possible way has a top speed as high as the F1, why ?? cause they don't care... He even thought Ferrari was gonna release something much more faster. But they didn't, if they had done so, the F1 would't be considered in such high standards...
And its not only Ferrari, do you think Porsche, Lambo, etc, aren't able to do so ?? they just don't find it important...
Even the one that reached the top speed, was modified to do so, it wasn't stock, like the ones that handle good aren't stock.
Its a supercar thats considered to be the greatest ever, and it really isn't, and never was.

[blah]

Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by blah Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by phatbimmer You know what sucks that none of us will ever get a chance to own either an F1, Veyron or Ferrari Enzo LOL! F1 ownz you 8) Also it took the world a decade to make another astonishing car, VW just has too much time on there hands, perhaps if they put the same time and effort into fixing there electronic problems VW's wouldn't be so frowned upon. Same goes for the rest of the Germans. how do you know no one owns or will ever own one, do you know all our finances and bank accounts ??? and again with the same BS that it took 10 years to make a car as great as the F1... yeah right, great in which way ?? top speed ?? no one cares about top speed, if top speed was the goal, we would have seen something faster than a Mclaren long ago... BS it took the bugatti so long to even get close to the F1s record let alone break it, same witht he Koneigsegg. no one cares about making the car with the highest top speed... while the Enzo was being developed, they wanted it to reach more than 400 but it sacrificed other performance figures of the car, and they didn't go just for top speed... Even Gordon Murray was surprised that after the F1, Ferrari released the F50, which in no possible way has a top speed as high as the F1, why ?? cause they don't care... He even thought Ferrari was gonna release something much more faster. But they didn't, if they had done so, the F1 would't be considered in such high standards... And its not only Ferrari, do you think Porsche, Lambo, etc, aren't able to do so ?? they just don't find it important... Even the one that reached the top speed, was modified to do so, it wasn't stock, like the ones that handle good aren't stock. Its a supercar thats considered to be the greatest ever, and it really isn't, and never was.

If no one cared about Top speed, then why are we discussing it, and why was the bugatti produced?

[LotusGT1]

Originally Posted by nthfinity and you're calling what i wrote bullshit? first off; lets see how many miles you can drive both those cars at NS before they become in need of serious mechanical work (assuming niether car crashes out)

WTF? You obviously have missed any point from everthing has said. What do you want to say about it anyway? You say I wrote bullshit. Besides the fact that my post was based on some actual facts you haven't been able to refute ANY of the points I made.

Originally Posted by nthfinity sure, the veyron is going to have the greater thirst, and slower cornering speeds (i would tend to think which options you proposed you use for the F1... the LM? the standard F1 (which costomers could ask to be different...)

Wehter the Veyron has greater thirst or not is a moot point and totally invalid when considering superexotics. However, the Veyron is fat as a pig, a boat compared to the F1. A fast one sure...

Originally Posted by nthfinity i would argue taht there is almost no such thing as a standard F1... then again, i really cant since i dont know... i've just heard that there are more options then mcLaren publish... many more options... they built 104, and i think sold 98 or something... does that mean its an exclusive car, or that it was in teh same league as the XJ220 (bad economic timing) ?

Point? Many racecars have been built back to road-spec. I give a flying fuck if there are many standard F1's or not. That's not the point. We're talking about a 90's sportscar that hasn't been surpassed for a decade.
You keep bickering on the sales figures, but fact is that the McLaren F1 couldn't have been introduced at a worse period (economically). That doesn't change the capabilities of the car.

Originally Posted by nthfinity you know... when it comes to Tiff; he later said he much preferred the 911 GT1 to the F1... so take a guess there... mabey it wasn't as cracked up as he says? his most asked about review is of the F1... guess why? the car is a myth... nobody knows shit about it except the few owners... go read a book about porsche; mabey you'd come to love them as the greatest drivers' cars on earth? oh, and about top speed... in 95, the Dauer hit 252mph with 730hp...

Again, what is your fucking point? Tiff prefered the 911 GT1 perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that he was lyrical about the car. And Tiff actually drove one. Like every other review of the car was lyrical. That is why the F1 has that much legacy.

I'll take those over your uninformed opinion based on zero facts, thanks.

BTW, I don't care about either the Dauer or Sledgehammer for that matter. The Dauer was a ppurpose built racecar converted for raod use with NO daily driving capacity whatsoever, and the Sledgehammer was a one-off concept built only for a high top end.

Both cars didn't have the daily driving capacities of the F1, built to be the ultimate roadcar, which it was.

Originally Posted by bmagni no one cares about making the car with the highest top speed... while the Enzo was being developed, they wanted it to reach more than 400 but it sacrificed other performance figures of the car, and they didn't go just for top speed... Even Gordon Murray was surprised that after the F1, Ferrari released the F50, which in no possible way has a top speed as high as the F1, why ?? cause they don't care... He even thought Ferrari was gonna release something much more faster. But they didn't, if they had done so, the F1 would't be considered in such high standards... And its not only Ferrari, do you think Porsche, Lambo, etc, aren't able to do so ?? they just don't find it important... Even the one that reached the top speed, was modified to do so, it wasn't stock, like the ones that handle good aren't stock. Its a supercar thats considered to be the greatest ever, and it really isn't, and never was.

LOL, what a load of bullshit (again). At the time the F1 was built to be the ultimate car in any way.

At the time neither Porsche, Ferrari or Lamborghini had seen this coming. I agree that today the focus of Ferrari with the Enzo and Porsche with the CGT was not on top-end speed. They could have acheved it, but it would have jeopardised the superior handling of both cars, as the downforce would make it almost impossible.

I'm sure todays sportscars will kill an F1 on the track. But fuck, they should with 10 years of technological advancement under their belt. But by dismissing the importance of topspeed you just defeated the sole purpose of the existance of the Veyron....lol@that.

About the topspeed run with a modified F1, it merely had a rev. limiter removed. What's with the BS about "the ones that handle great aren't stock." ? You really have no idea what you're talking about. Fact is that the F1 was king off all sportscars in a decade. And that's one incredible achievement.

If you guys don't like the McLaren F1 for preferential reasons (like Jabba i.e.) you have all the right and I can respect that. But don't try to donwplay the car with the most bullshit reasoning because you can't find objective facts to support your dislike.

[nthfinity]

there are articles posted somewhere here, and other places that point to even the F50 being the superior track weapon (vs original magazine tested road trimp F1's)

the F1 has 3 seats (driver in the middle) it goes 231 mph (rev limited) handles well enough (low for supercar standards?), and there are only a little over 100 of them. and runs the 1/4 mile in 11. seconds... and has special luggage that ifts in its special luggage compartments. i'd love to see a 'standard' version lap the ring...

the F50 has 2 seats, a removable top; goes 202 mph (aero limited) handles better then any production road car at the time, and does the 1/4 mile in 11.high seconds, and seats 2.

i honestly dont see where the F1 is all that much greater... particularly when accounting for the cars own lack of reliability... its ease of use is defeted by it. sure, the people who can afford it have no problem paying that price for repairs, and long stints away from the garage... Ferrari have authorized mechanics all over the place.

of course, the F1's accelleration is intoxicating... and tiff loves its un-assisted feeling brakes (like a race car) and its twitchiness... that means the car much more for race drivers then the average wealthy person... there is a reason why Jeremy didn't like it; and didn't feel it was as rewarding as its mythic stats might suggest. he, like most of us, aren't race drivers...

the people who bought this car can often find the time/money to become a race driver... of course they are going to praise it.

[bmagni]

Originally Posted by blah If no one cared about Top speed, then why are we discussing it, and why was the bugatti produced?

we discuss it, cause its what the F1 is all about, hehe, and bugatti/vw cared about it, you're right, and what did they do ?? break the F1's record going over 400... yeah 10 years later or whatever, but with a superheavy luxury GT, with an impressive gearbox...
oh and so did Koenigsegg...

[gucom]

Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by blah If no one cared about Top speed, then why are we discussing it, and why was the bugatti produced? we discuss it, cause its what the F1 is all about,

which is why they only tested its top speed after production had (almost?) ended... :roll: i get sick of hearing that stupid argument, its simply not true...

[nthfinity]

Originally Posted by gucom Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by blah If no one cared about Top speed, then why are we discussing it, and why was the bugatti produced? we discuss it, cause its what the F1 is all about, which is why they only tested its top speed after production had (almost?) ended... :roll: i get sick of hearing that stupid argument, its simply not true...

if it were untrue; then the car simply wouldn't have been geared so tall. they knew exactly what they had; and late, when sales were 'slumping' they did a few things; began a racing program (at request from costomers; denied, and then accepted---i'd guess because of the falling sales)

[sameerrao]

This thread is pointless ... those of us who like the F1 for what it is will continue to do so ... those of us who hate it for misguided reasons will continue to do so. So this is me checking out from this topic ...

I have better things to do than wage a pointless battle

Instead of us quarterbacking all this shit why not listen to a man who has owned and driven the hell out of his F1:

http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/top...&h=0&hw=flemke

http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/top...&h=0&hw=flemke

http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/top...&h=0&hw=flemke

[sentra_dude]

Originally Posted by nthfinity Originally Posted by gucom Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by blah If no one cared about Top speed, then why are we discussing it, and why was the bugatti produced? we discuss it, cause its what the F1 is all about, which is why they only tested its top speed after production had (almost?) ended... :roll: i get sick of hearing that stupid argument, its simply not true... if it were untrue; then the car simply wouldn't have been geared so tall. they knew exactly what they had; and late, when sales were 'slumping' they did a few things; began a racing program (at request from costomers; denied, and then accepted---i'd guess because of the falling sales)

Its not what the F1 is all about, if it was all the F1 is about the car would have:
1) forced induction
2) much lower drag coefficient
3) no focus on low weight
4) narrower tires
5) no preference on mid-engine

if it were untrue; then the car simply wouldn't have been geared so tall.

The gearing was different from car to car, for example, the F1 that Road & Track tested redlined at 217mph.

Gordon Murray only set out for a car that would go 200mph+, why would they have spent so much time and effort on the suspension and low overall weight if they were only concerned about top speed? If the car had only been about top speed, don't you think a brilliant designer like Gordon Murray would have been able to do better than 240mph, since several cars had gone faster... If that had been his main goal, I think we would have seen a very different looking car, and one that would be much faster than 240mph. However, obviously that was not the main goal, and Murray has stated that many times.

when sales were 'slumping' they did a few things; began a racing program (at request from customers; denied, and then accepted---i'd guess because of the falling sales)

The racing program was at the request of customers. The reason they were first denied was because the F1 was designed as a road-car, and therefore would be at a disadvantage when raced against cars purpose-built for the track. However, at the insistence of several customers they did 'go racing'.

[magwheel]

Damn... I'm almost afraid to chime in! I took a Mclaren SLR for a demo ride Friday. I had looked at it Thursday and was fairly interested in it but the problem was that I would have had to get rid of one of my cars,
probably the Maranello because they're both considered to be GT Touring type cars. While driving it the 10-15 miloes, it seemed to have kinda heavy steering and IMO wanted to wander a little. In other words, if I took my hands off the wheel, I don't think it would track a straight for too long. I drove it like a Grandma would out of respect for the dealer whose was kind enough to let me take it for a test ride even after I told him I really wasn't sure how interested in the car. I didn't want to put excess miles on the car in case somebody else was going to buy it and my interest in it wasn't hot and heavy. It's a beautiful looking ride and the Silver paint (metalflake or firemist-whichever you prefer) was unbelieveable in the sun. It was like a 2 bit whore at the White House! It really stood out!! The ride was real firm, I guess because the body is not rubber mounted to the frame and every expansion strip was felt. But.... you could feel the power! It looks like a super technological achievement looking over the car. Trick stuff everywhere. Very hard to justify the price in my opinion. I'd love to own it but I don't think I'd get rid of the Maranello for it even if it was half the price. To be fair, I absolutely love the car, but comparing it to the Maranello, I think I got the better of the two!

[magwheel]

Whoa.... wait a minute. (quote from somebody:It does everything better, faster than any other car from 1900 to 2000. Nothing touches it. Even if the Bugatti Veyron ends up being faster, there is no comparison. The McLaren is a dancer; the Veyron a girl with big boobs.) Jeez.... I absolutely lovvve big boobs. My vote is for the Veyron. Am I allowed to vote more than once? :silly:

[sentra_dude]

You need to make a seperate topic about that man!!! An SLR drive, on JW? Holy crap, do you have any pics or anything? That definitely deserves it's own topic, away from this mess...

[sameerrao]

Originally Posted by magwheel Damn... I'm almost afraid to chime in! I took a Mclaren SLR for a demo ride Friday. I had looked at it Thursday and was fairly interested in it but the problem was that I would have had to get rid of one of my cars, probably the Maranello because they're both considered to be GT Touring type cars. While driving it the 10-15 miloes, it seemed to have kinda heavy steering and IMO wanted to wander a little. In other words, if I took my hands off the wheel, I don't think it would track a straight for too long. I drove it like a Grandma would out of respect for the dealer whose was kind enough to let me take it for a test ride even after I told him I really wasn't sure how interested in the car. I didn't want to put excess miles on the car in case somebody else was going to buy it and my interest in it wasn't hot and heavy. It's a beautiful looking ride and the Silver paint (metalflake or firemist-whichever you prefer) was unbelieveable in the sun. It was like a 2 bit whore at the White House! It really stood out!! The ride was real firm, I guess because the body is not rubber mounted to the frame and every expansion strip was felt. But.... you could feel the power! It looks like a super technological achievement looking over the car. Trick stuff everywhere. Very hard to justify the price in my opinion. I'd love to own it but I don't think I'd get rid of the Maranello for it even if it was half the price. To be fair, I absolutely love the car, but comparing it to the Maranello, I think I got the better of the two!

Interesting car line-up Magwheel ... I would appreciate it if you can post some pics in the "What you drive" section.

[gucom]

One more comment on wether or not the F1 was aimed at the highest top speed, gordon murray when choosing an engine chose the engine BMW had proposed over the one proposed by Mercedes, even tho the merc had more HP. this because the BMW engine was torquey-er, which made it a better sports car in his mind. Correct me if im wrong, but dont you need hp for top-end speed and torque for flexible driving?

[sentra_dude]

Just one last thing in this topic, as this topic began because of a topic over on FChat, here's another quote from FChat, by Peloton25, who is probably one of the most knowledgable people out there on the F1...



"
I'm not going to get knee deep in any debates, but I will say there are some well informed people in this thread and some misinformed people as well.

The facts I feel that deserve clarification are:

The original MSRP (if you will) of the F1 was £634,000 - which at the time based on currency conversions translated to approximately $1,000,000 USD. That may be where some of the confusion on price came from.

= = = = = =

Gordon told the story of the GTRs creation at ArtCenter in Pasadena last year. Basically a small group of customers approached McLaren and said they wished to take the F1 racing in the BPR series in 1995 and wanted McLaren to develop a version of the car specifically for it. As making the F1 a racer had never been part of McLaren's game plan they initially said no. The customers weren't happy with this answer and intended to do it on their own at which point Gordon was able to convince Ron that might be a bad idea.

Ron eventually approved the project and offered a development budget based on the profit McLaren would receive from selling just 5 GTRs. This didn't pay for much, and in fact the aerodynamics package that was initially developed on the cars was something Gordon came up with after just one day of testing in the wind tunnel as that was all the budget allowed. The cars would see further development as time went on, and of course for 1997 McLaren developed the longtail GTR so as to remain competitive, which Gordon would describe as a "proper racer", but those extra efforts only came after the cars proved to be worthy and successful on the track.

= = = = = =

McLaren did not sell out at first offering - in fact after the initial rush of buyers orders were satisfied through the first two years they had a difficult time moving more road cars. Partly this was due to a downturn in the global economy that occurred at the time of the cars release; partly because America, which is normally a strong market for supercars, was not viable due to legal restrictions on importation; and finally because there were some potential customers who were simply scared away by the performance of the car.

McLaren's original plan was to build 300 cars over roughly a 6 year period, again with no plans for any kind of racing efforts with the car. In the end, if not for the racers and subsequent special versions of the F1 (LM & GT) it's fairly clear they would have only achieved roughly 1/5th the sales they initially intended based on the final road car tally of 64 cars, plus 5 prototypes. You could even argue that some of the later road car sales were helped by the success of the racers, so maybe the finally tally would have been even lower still without that deviation.

= = = = = =

McLaren did not lose money on the F1 project - this is a common misconception that circulates. At the time McLaren was a privately held company, so the books weren't totally available to dissect, but CAR Magazine published an article in January 1997 titled "Out of the red... into the black" that detailed McLaren Cars' struggle to control costs on the F1 project and a former Ford, Jag and Lotus Executive named Derek Waelend that was added to the team to help reign in costs. Some notable quotes from the article:

- Waelend won't comment, but the word among suppliers is that he and his team reduced the cost of building each car by close to £90,000, and brought the breakeven number down to less than 100 cars from more than 200. In short, he made the project profitable.

- The assembly operation at Woking now takes 670 hours. It used to take 1200. At Shalford, where the F1's composite body is hand assembled the gains are equally impressive. What used to take 3000 man hours is now taking 1200.

- "Mind you," Waelend can't resist adding, "we soon resourced all of the machined parts. Gordon's team went for the suppliers they knew best. Formula One suppliers. But they're expensive and tend to be seasonal. When the teams all start building cars for the next season you can't get a fart out of them."

- It's a popular myth that the F1 project has been a black hole for McLaren, incurring losses of millions of pounds. Not so. When Ron Dennis waves goodbye to the 100th F1 next year, it will be with a warm glow in his current account.

- The last results published show McLaren Cars made an operating loss (after tax) of just over £2m in 1994/95. Sales of the F1 generated only £124,971 in '94/'95. McLaren is cagey about how many cars that relates to, but even at a pessimistic 20, it's a margin of just over £6000 a car - and that's with Waelend's £90,000 cost reduction, remember. Without it, each F1 sold for the asking price of £634,000 would have lost £84k.

= = = = = =

Even if McLaren Cars didn't make one Dollar (or Pound, as the case may be) on the F1, the amount of exposure and crediblity that it gave to the company as an initial road offering is nearly immeasurable. Regardless of what they have been able to do since falling under Mercedes control with a project like the SLR, the F1 project definitely put them on the map as a company that could do greater things than just win races and you have to see value in that from a company growth perspective.

The fact that to this day the F1 continues to be heralded by many as one of the greatest supercars ever made, with values actually increasing rather than remaining stagnant like many others is another testament to it's greatness. Like it or not, you simply can't write it off or ignore it like so many other failed attempts in that segment.

>8^)
ER

"




An excellent post, he needs to find his way over to JW sometime, for one of our many F1 v Veyron debates.