motor

Svensson · 08-16-2006, 11:09 PM

Originally Posted by rave426

^^ Double clutching is what big-rigs use to upshift isnt it.

I heard it once but really am not sure since i have never needed to use it.

No, double clutching is what you saw in the second video I just posted. Combined with heel-and-toe, it has 2 functions. It saves the synchromeshes of your gears and smooths out the downshift, as there's no jerk when you release the clutch.

5vz-fe · 08-16-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

and notice, that car IS NOT a 'standard' F1... and, he is a former F1 pilot, where lightning reflexes have long been part of his game...

but def. notice this car is NOT the same F1 that has no real benefit aero package like this....

was this car a LM, or aerokited? it does look lower then a standard F1 too...

Just in case ppl are confused by the different versions of the 100 Macca

YouTube

This is Jackie Stewarts view

Interview with Jackie stewart - YouTube

nickthaskater · 08-16-2006, 11:33 PM

The GTR Longtail is undoubtedly my favourite F1 of them all.

Chassis 27R. Absolute perfection.

5vz-fe · 08-16-2006, 11:36 PM

^^ :shock: :shock:

nthfinity · 08-16-2006, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by nickthaskater

The GTR Longtail is undoubtedly my favourite F1 of them all.

Chassis 27R. Absolute perfection.

OMG, welcome to japanese wild tuning machines

IMO

nickthaskater · 08-16-2006, 11:43 PM

Huh? Japanese wild tuning machines? It's a fucking racecar man.

novass · 08-16-2006, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by nickthaskater

The GTR Longtail is undoubtedly my favourite F1 of them all.

Chassis 27R. Absolute perfection.

:shock: Holy hell! Is that a car or some kind of space craft?

nickthaskater · 08-16-2006, 11:48 PM

That'd be the GTR Longtail...

TypeLT · 08-17-2006, 12:15 AM

Holy annoying, open the damn passenger side door and spin!

sentra_dude · 08-17-2006, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by nthfinity

Great post Sentra!

how is it that McLaren couldn't make a car that light handle as well, or better then the others? its beyond my comprehension.

but straight line speed is not what makes a supercar a supercar... its the balance, which the F1 just doesn't have right.

Here is the answer, straight from the source:

Originally Posted by flemke

Originally Posted by dredge

Do you have any thoughts as to the reasons behind the handling problems on the F1? Not the actual physical causes, but as to why it was built that way. Compromises in design or engineering? Or even not keeping it "down to earth" enough to cope with real-world driving situations?

P.S. How do the windows work? Which bit(s) open? Just the bottom part?

dredge,

The lower part of the window opens. As it happens, when you're driving with one or both open, it creates a draft that pulls into the cockpit the odour generated by the radiators, which is rather unpleasant.

Your general question is a good one, upon which I have spent many hours reflecting.
It would be indiscreet of me to go into all that I know (which of course is a fraction of the whole story).

Some of the factors that relate to this questions must surely include:
- We are judging the car by 2006 standards and experience; road car design has come a great distance since the F1 was designed in the early '90s.
- The company had never made a road car (ignoring the three prototypes that Bruce McLaren made in the '60s). The chief designer had never been involved in the production of a road car (ignoring the Rocket, which is really a single-seater race car with indicator lights). The chief road-tester was a Formula One driver. HELLO???
- They wanted a comfortable car that would accomodate at least two people and enable them and their luggage to travel across a continent in relaxation and at speed. At the same time they wanted a car with a huge NA engine, carbon brakes, diffuser, no rear wing, carbon tub, mid-engine functioning as a stressed member, no power steering or traction control or ABS. Not necessarily a collection of things that are perfectly compatible.
- In proportion to the size of the challenge that they set out for themselves, their budget was small.
- Various forms of technology - and most especially tyre technology - were still in their early stages. McLaren tried to push all the boundaries. When you do that, you are lucky to succeed in some areas; it is very unlikely that you will succeed in all.

The Veyron programme has cost perhaps 10 times as much as the F1 programme did. It was undertaken by a company with massive experience in developing and building road cars, and with none-too-shabby recent experience building race cars. The Veyron is as least as compromised as the F1 is, but in entirely different ways.

Building a truly great car is hard to do - a lot of guys have tried, and a lot of guys have died.

PaulGT2164 · 08-17-2006, 12:44 AM

i think of reading most of this thread and the constant pointless arguing. i am now stupider.

sentra_dude · 08-17-2006, 12:46 AM

Not too overwhelm everyone with these 'quote' posts, but I hope they shed some light on this debate, and I find it very interesting to read what an owner & enthusiast has to say about this car, I hope everyone else does as well.

This is a bit off-topic, but since the Big Bug invariably comes up whenever the F1 is mentioned, I'll throw this last flemke quote in:

[on the Veyron]

Originally Posted by flemke

I have ridden in and driven them. They are amazingly competent - and I do mean "amazingly". Feel like they weigh 30-35% less than they actually do. Acceleration is intense by the standards of anyone but Don Garlits and John Force. The brakes and chassis poise are great. Build quality is at the F1 level, although in a higher-volume way. And what a gearbox! The way the thing shifts gears - you actually don't notice that it's happening, and yet when you've gone from a standstill to 150 it pretty obviously has done.

Unless you live in Germany, however, the car is pretty pointless as a driving machine.
It's got a few ugly details (such as engine-turned aluminium console and horseshoe radiator surround) that stand out like sore thumbs.
Worst of all, the car has no charisma, no personality. It makes a Carrera GT seem like a barrel full of monkeys.

In the end, no matter what the shortcomings of the F1, it is still a fantastic car, and I still consider it to be my favorite car, and one of the best in the world, despite not being perfect. Knowing a car has faults does not mean its ruined, it is just being realistic.

nthfinity · 08-17-2006, 04:52 AM

In the end, no matter what the shortcomings of the F1, it is still a fantastic car, and I still consider it to be my favorite car, and one of the best in the world, despite not being perfect. Knowing a car has faults does not mean its ruined, it is just being realistic.

spoken like an unbiased, and true car lover.

Sentra, you are EXCACTLY hitting on one of the points of this thread's existance. It is O K that I'm not a fan of the F1; and that doesn't affect anybody. It is tiresome that it has been widely accepted as this penultimate machine by everyone it seems. That is such a detracting point to even wanting to like this car. If people build it up so much... they get disapointed by the real deal; and are left in bewilderment.

Real potential owners/and owners are among the few who think in terms of reality with the F1.

Where I disagree with mr. Flemke is that I am not comparing the F1 to modern supercars; but the ones' of the Thatcher era. Sure, there are things the F1 did better; such as the CF Monicoque Chassis is superior to the F40, and F50's chassis; and only topped by the CGT, and perhaps the Enzo's semi Monicoque.

referring to the cost of development.... the EB110 spent 30 million developing the prototype... Vector spent 30 million brining 22 cars to friution (17 production cars) and who knows about the Jaguar XJ220, and F40....

the fact is, the Vector's compromises were in terms of reliability; the use of its semi automatic 3 speed gearbox... yet it is remarkably comfortable to drive on any road surface across the US. It's largest problem these days is the lack of use for its tires; which were able to pull 1 G back in 1991... were those tires more advanced then when the F1 was brought to market?

Supercars have flaws, and that is OK; we don't have to put them on such a pedistal; as they definately aren't deserving.

anyway..... there is still one more point to this threads' existance... lets see if that comes out of the woodwork.

nickthaskater · 08-17-2006, 05:20 AM

Originally Posted by dani_d_mas

Of course the Macca is not perfect - but from here to state that it handles badly there's a looong looong way IMO

Which is all anyone in this thread has said really. I haven't seen any fanboys proclaiming that the F1 will outhandle modern supercars and that it's faultless and touched by the hand of god, but I have seen plenty of people willing to concede that the F1 isn't perfect.

LotusGT1 · 08-17-2006, 05:22 AM

Agreed with Dani and Nick. The initial starting point of this topic was nothing short of BS. This topic reeks after a certain dislike for this car. It's fanboy behavior, just from the negative angle...

I haven't seen people here claim the F1 is perfect, but for its time, and even today, the F1 is an impressive car.

For the record, Mika drove the McLaren F1 XP5, the last prototype built.