PDA

View Full Version : Will the McLaren F1 ever be dethroned? (Read the first $@#*%@ post!) :)



Egg Nog
05-14-2003, 05:22 PM
No, I'm not talking about top speed :)

I'm talking about the benefits of ownership compared to other supercars. Other manufacturers have built machines that can outperform the F1 on the track, and a few can/will acheive a higher top speed, but how would you like to own them? To me, The F1 is the ultimate driver's car. The Enzo is great, and so is the Zonda, and so are a range of others, but there's a few things that they simply cannot top:

3 Seats and the surprisingly huge amount of space provided by the dual side panier lockers. (Oh yeah, and apparently the performance is half-decent as well :))

For me, this alone makes the F1 the most desireable car on the road. It truly is one that you could take anywhere (except off-roading) and still find it perfectly useable.

What do you guys think?

Hakk
05-15-2003, 12:00 AM
Sure it is the most desirable...Even if the Enzo is good, it is a F****ri and F****ri had make so lot of cars...While McLaren has only one that is top of whatever...

ozi
05-15-2003, 09:26 AM
who would buy a F1 over this...
just kidding! the best sport car are lamborghini murcielago, FERRARI enzo and bugati veyron mc is great but its not a ferrari! he he

Nash
05-15-2003, 03:45 PM
The McLaren is about 10 years old, and is still ranked very high up there when it comes to supercars. It's probably THE supercar.

I think it's the greatest machine ever built.

piledriver
05-16-2003, 08:57 AM
I think a car with it´s handling and power will not be made for some time... even though a Ferrari...
The McLaren F1 is simply beautifull and almost perfect...
A great option to buy, but not here in Brazil...
:D

Kossy
05-16-2003, 05:50 PM
Even if cars come to beat the Mac on the track, the Mac will always be a very very special car because of its exclusivity, its records and because of the amazing attention to detail and quality of the workmanship.

RS6
06-07-2003, 07:58 AM
The McLaren F1 is ugly. No offence.

motorhead
06-07-2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by RS6
The McLaren F1 is ugly. No offence.
rs6 its by no means ugly its just that its not that special enough and by the way i am not a fan of their styling either but then again you have to look at the performance but then again they did not use their own engine so ultimately the car is not good at all and its getting old, really really old

motormaniac
06-07-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by motorhead
rs6 its by no means ugly its just that its not that special enough and by the way i am not a fan of their styling either but then again you have to look at the performance but then again they did not use their own engine so ultimately the car is not good at all and its getting old, really really old

before u get all your facts mixed up,

i agree that bmw produced the engine: because maclaren did not have enough resources;

and the brains behind the engine were maclaren's own ppl:

they DESIGENED IT and ask bmw to BUILD IT

therefore it is their engine, although it has bmw written all over it

motorhead
06-08-2003, 05:58 AM
Originally posted by motormaniac
before u get all your facts mixed up,

i agree that bmw produced the engine: because maclaren did not have enough resources;

and the brains behind the engine were maclaren's own ppl:

they DESIGENED IT and ask bmw to BUILD IT

therefore it is their engine, although it has bmw written all over it
its not entirely theirs and the base is BMW - they could not even start if they did not have a base. and how much development did they put in not too much i bet because the engine is that damn good and could you please post your threads in a much more calm tone and not like crazy dipsomaniac - THANKS

motormaniac
06-09-2003, 04:26 AM
erm, i not a dipsomaniac;

and a dipsomaniac has got nothing to do with this

i was very very clam when posting the comment

i already said that the engine was not entierly theirs but they DESIGNED and IMPROVED it and bmw simply produced it

simple reason being that maclaren did not have enough resources

motorhead
06-09-2003, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by motormaniac
erm, i not a dipsomaniac;

and a dipsomaniac has got nothing to do with this

i was very very clam when posting the comment

i already said that the engine was not entierly theirs but they DESIGNED and IMPROVED it and bmw simply produced it

simple reason being that maclaren did not have enough resources
they almost went bankrupt after producing the F1 - poor fellows - but luckily they did not

RS6
06-10-2003, 02:30 PM
The McLaren F1 is a truly great car and I love it but it is just a bit ugly. Sure it is fast, very fast but isn't the Veyron faster.

motormaniac
06-10-2003, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by motorhead
they almost went bankrupt after producing the F1 - poor fellows - but luckily they did not

precisely, if they had produced the engine all by themselves....we would not have had one of the most special cars ever

motorhead
06-12-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by motormaniac
precisely, if they had produced the engine all by themselves....we would not have had one of the most special cars ever yes bit its still not their engine

Homem de Gelo
06-12-2003, 12:08 PM
The McLaren F1 was conceived as a car that was a decade ahead of its time. Only now have car makers been able to build cars that come close to it, such as the Enzo and the CC 8S.

Considering its age, winning history in Le Mans and how much of a technological acheivement it is, I consider the F1 to still be the benchmark in terms of supercars.

motormaniac
06-12-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Arcanjo
The McLaren F1 was conceived as a car that was a decade ahead of its time. Only now have car makers been able to build cars that come close to it, such as the Enzo and the CC 8S.

Considering its age, winning history in Le Mans and how much of a technological acheivement it is, I consider the F1 to still be the benchmark in terms of supercars.

i totally agree with u

for a car that was conceived in 1993....whoa, the F1 rocks big time

motorhead
06-13-2003, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by motormaniac
i totally agree with u

for a car that was conceived in 1993....whoa, the F1 rocks big time whoa its also losin big time nowdays - there are cars which look way better than it now(thats up to opinion but if you think about it the design of the f1 is a bit sickening now)number two its chassis is getting a bit old and there are other chassis with much better overall capabilities nowdays - and yes that interior - total rubbish in the mclaren - my mums toyota has a better interior - performance wise its still good but you people and the engineers at mclaren cannot get over the fact that they have been beaten or actually in actual fact they have already been beaten by the chevrolet corvette sledgehammer - which came out in 1989 - mclaren did very well in motorsports especially Le mans and GT but there were other cars which still beat it - ultimately the mclaren is old - not as good as before and what they need to do is create a new car - then we will see how it goes

Homem de Gelo
06-13-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by motorhead
whoa its also losin big time nowdays - there are cars which look way better than it now(thats up to opinion but if you think about it the design of the f1 is a bit sickening now)number two its chassis is getting a bit old and there are other chassis with much better overall capabilities nowdays - and yes that interior - total rubbish in the mclaren - my mums toyota has a better interior - performance wise its still good but you people and the engineers at mclaren cannot get over the fact that they have been beaten or actually in actual fact they have already been beaten by the chevrolet corvette sledgehammer - which came out in 1989 - mclaren did very well in motorsports especially Le mans and GT but there were other cars which still beat it - ultimately the mclaren is old - not as good as before and what they need to do is create a new car - then we will see how it goes

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Have you noticed it took a decade for everyone else to make cars in the same league as the F1?

Oh, and the Corvette Sledgehammer isn't a production car and nobody gives a shit about tuned Corvettes from the 80s.

Egg Nog
06-13-2003, 10:56 PM
You guys seem to be straying slightly off-topic, but I suppose that's only natural.

My main point was, the F1 is a much more ownable car than even the most modern cars. Sure, maybe the Enzo has been proven to out-accelerate the F1. Sure, the Bugatti's faster and the Koenigsegg is catching up. But they still aren't competitors in the truest sense.

The F1 has seating for 3, and far more storage room than pretty much every other supercar. Track times, flat out acceleration, and even top speed aside. The McLaren was designed to be owned and driven on the road. It is a car that could easily function as the only vehicle you own. And no other car can touch it's class in that sense.

motorhead
06-13-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Arcanjo
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
Have you noticed it took a decade for everyone else to make cars in the same league as the F1?

Oh, and the Corvette Sledgehammer isn't a production car and nobody gives a shit about tuned Corvettes from the 80s. in fact i do give a shit and do you know why they took a decade its because they wanted to concentrate on other mass production sales instead of building a rare car which could make them bankrupt. they wantd to earn a bit or should i say a lot before they actually started building these - and you know the veyron - VW only recently bought it because bugatti was under this damn rich french guy and he was the one who supervised the development and building of the EB110(which unfortunately did not do very well)and VW had loads of profits abd they wanted to resurruct bugatti thusthey made the veyron - VW could have done that ages ago but the company was not under them - VW wanted to make the NARDO(w12)but they thought it was too expensive to built and so they concentrated on other cars like the r32 golf and pheaton and toureg - you see its actually easy building supercars but you must have the cost and the willingness - mclaren has nothing else to worry about except their motorsports and only one car they do not make sedans, SUVs or hatchbacks - thus they had all the time in the world

motormaniac
06-14-2003, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by motorhead
in fact i do give a shit and do you know why they took a decade its because they wanted to concentrate on other mass production sales instead of building a rare car which could make them bankrupt. they wantd to earn a bit or should i say a lot before they actually started building these - and you know the veyron - VW only recently bought it because bugatti was under this damn rich french guy and he was the one who supervised the development and building of the EB110(which unfortunately did not do very well)and VW had loads of profits abd they wanted to resurruct bugatti thusthey made the veyron - VW could have done that ages ago but the company was not under them - VW wanted to make the NARDO(w12)but they thought it was too expensive to built and so they concentrated on other cars like the r32 golf and pheaton and toureg - you see its actually easy building supercars but you must have the cost and the willingness - mclaren has nothing else to worry about except their motorsports and only one car they do not make sedans, SUVs or hatchbacks - thus they had all the time in the world

Wat u juz said was a whole lot of crap

Maclaren nearly went down the dumps trying to produce the F1

and juz for ur info

it's not easy building a supercar,

much less a normal car

motorhead
06-14-2003, 07:47 AM
no actually it is easy building one because just look at the number of supercars that are coming out of everywhere now

Egg Nog
06-14-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by motorhead
no actually it is easy building one because just look at the number of supercars that are coming out of everywhere now

His point about the McLaren was actually very irrelevent, and your rebuttal shows how little you understand. Many supercars are being developed (reletively) cheaply now due to the sharing of platforms and to a certain extent, engines.

This is largely why single-platform vehicles like the F1, Bugatti EB110 and the Jaguar XJ220 have had little financial success. The pure development costs covered so much overhead that the corporations couldn't easily profit off of these ventures.

Anyway, please, let's try to get back on topic.

FERRARI~KING
06-14-2003, 09:41 PM
When it first came out, the McLaren F1 was truly the best supercar out there, truly outstanding for its time. However, new cars with new technology can beat it. The McLaren's 627hp engine and aerodynamics gave it its speedy performance; but for that, there is a price to pay (1.168 million!!!). The car was so low to the ground, you got jolted out of your seat when you hit a tiny bump at 50mph. The cargo had to be loaded into compartments on the sides of the vehicle too. Also, the interior was not very spacious and you felt as if you werew stuck in a small, crowded space.

New cars, such as the Enzo and Zonda have much better prie values and get you more for the buck. Apparently, if you had as much hp for the buck as you did in the Dodge SRT-4, the McLaren F1 should've had 60025hp!!! Just a fun fact...

I think the supercars today are bettr than the F1. Besides, when are you going to drive that fast in a city, highway, or freeway? Ok, well maybe a freeway now and then...but when else?

Egg Nog
06-15-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by FERRARI~KING
The car was so low to the ground, you got jolted out of your seat when you hit a tiny bump at 50mph. The cargo had to be loaded into compartments on the sides of the vehicle too. Also, the interior was not very spacious and you felt as if you werew stuck in a small, crowded space...

...Apparently, if you had as much hp for the buck as you did in the Dodge SRT-4, the McLaren F1 should've had 60025hp!!! Just a fun fact...

...when are you going to drive that fast in a city, highway, or freeway? Ok, well maybe a freeway now and then...but when else?

However, my argument wasn't that it was extremely practical, it was that it was "ownable" compared to other supercars. Price had nothing to do with it, and it was only comparing the F1 to other supercars.

Your pointsabout speed and location are just as relevent for any other supercar, and therefore not justifiable as an argument against the McLaren. You said "......when are you going to drive that fast in a city, highway, or freeway?"; Well, maybe so, but this exact same argument also applies to the Zonda, Enzo, CC, and all of the others.

As for the cockpit, you did have one fairly decent point. The interior of the McLaren is relatively spartan and less spacious than the interiors of other supercars. Its only advantage, so it seems, is that you can haul one more person around with you. That seemed like quite an advantage to me.

However, your argument about storage space is applicable to all of my points in paragraph 2. :) The F1 has relatively frustrating storage spaces compared to, for example, a BMW 540i or something similar. But I wasn't comparing it to a family sedan. Compared to modern supercars, or any supercars for that matter, the F1 has loads more space. Where do you fit 4 full-sized bags on a Murcielago? What about a Zonda? Exactly my point.

That was an overly long post, so I hope that I got my point across. ;)

motormaniac
06-15-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by motorhead
no actually it is easy building one because just look at the number of supercars that are coming out of everywhere now

yeah cause these companies are either rich or owned by rich companies and they r easy to produce

Rmember, not easy to build

Easy to produce

sandwich
09-15-2003, 07:50 AM
I'm sorry but I don't think it will be dethroned anytime soon. The mclaren simply has enough amenities to make it an everyday car. It's held the fastest stats for 10 years, and only now are other cars beating it. Not only that, but the car was designed to be comfortable too, this is why it doesn't have the skidpad performance of some others.

I've never been in an enzo or any of ferrari's f-series cars, but they look almost like racecars to me. $700k is half the mclaren, but the mclaren was handbuilt. 60 of them were built by hand, from carbon fiber. THE ENGINE BAY WAS LINED WITH GOLD TO PREVENT HEAT TRANSFER. You don't see that kind of care in ANY other car. Not only that, but if you drive a brand new ferrari off the lot, the resale value drops by what, HALF? Maybe not on all, but it seems like people don't get nearly the same price for their cars a year after they buy them, whereas the mclarens are appreciating? After 10 years?

It seems to me that if you really wanted to compare equal cars you have to pick an F1 LM and an enzo. Their just more race oriented. And the LM has 0-60 of 2.9?

I don't know if you've ever seen it, but there's a video floating around on kazaa of top speed's test on the F1. There's just so much engineering in it. They designed a lightweight cd-player to save weight. It has two side "boots". Room for 3. No turbos or anything to worry about.

It may not be the prettiest car, but it is a blend of form and function. It's lines still hold true today, while some cars look like the designer tried to figure out how many awful lines he could integrate into one car. Also, it was designed to have minimal front and rear overhangs to keep weight centered.

I'm sorry but I just don't think that can be beat. Not unless some company is willing to go to the lengths that mclaren did. Quite frankly, I doubt that will ever happen. Not by ferrari, bugatti, or zonda.

beauty....

uk83
09-15-2003, 01:50 PM
at 1st i dun think the mclaren is a "only" car. its a race car and race cars need care much care. so to me that point is off.

some1 said its comfortable?? maybe compared to a ferrari or so. but i guess thats not REALLY the point in a race car. sure its a + coz the drive will be able to take more out of it but...

then some1 complained about it not having enough features and it not beeing coiwsy (how do you write that :) ) well. that wasn't the point either i guess.

as i hear an intervieuw say in my head. the mclaren F1 was build (by the number 1 furmula 1 team) to take other persons as close as posseble to a formula 1 experience. so take al the greatest stuff that you have from furmula 1 make it street legal put in a more reliable engine and make it's performance as close as posseble as a formula 1 car. well they did. and they did good i guess. havent driven any, but who of us did right. i dun aspact the car to by cowsy (again) and i dun aspect it to be comfortable, i aspect it to be fast have a (for that time) near-perfect handling and look great.

according to me they did a great job and i guess there IS a better faster car now.... but for its age the mac f1 still is the best build car to combine age and performance. and as far as i know it, with the middle seating and all. it still is the car that comes as close as posseble to a formula 1 car.

so to answer the question. no i dun think it kicked from its throne yet, and i dont think it'll happen ever.
in 100years i guess it ll be the most nostalgic car there is. it ll just be...... slow.

DiabloGTR
09-21-2003, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by Egg Nog
No, I'm not talking about top speed :)

I'm talking about the benefits of ownership compared to other supercars. Other manufacturers have built machines that can outperform the F1 on the track, and a few can/will acheive a higher top speed, but how would you like to own them? To me, The F1 is the ultimate driver's car. The Enzo is great, and so is the Zonda, and so are a range of others, but there's a few things that they simply cannot top:

3 Seats and the surprisingly huge amount of space provided by the dual side panier lockers. (Oh yeah, and apparently the performance is half-decent as well :))

For me, this alone makes the F1 the most desireable car on the road. It truly is one that you could take anywhere (except off-roading) and still find it perfectly useable.

What do you guys think?


There were only 100 McLaren F1's ever built. Not only is it a great performance car, but it's rare. There are many new cars like the Ferrari Enzo, but there will be 399 Enzo's built, only in yellow and red.
It doesn't matter if Bugatti is coming out with the Veyron, which is supposed to go 252mph, the McLaren will always have it's place in our hearts. Not Just because of it's performance, but the fact that it's a rare work of art.

Misho
09-21-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by DiabloGTR
There were only 100 McLaren F1's ever built. Not only is it a great performance car, but it's rare. There are many new cars like the Ferrari Enzo, but there will be 399 Enzo's built, only in yellow and red.


From what i know, there will be 349 Enzos made and they will be available in red, yellow and black which will be the rarest of the three colors.

Please anyone, confirm or doubt what i just said !!

RS6
09-22-2003, 01:57 PM
They actually built 107 McLaren F1s in total.

sandwich
09-22-2003, 02:12 PM
hmmm....i just read about the dauer 962....what a great looking car...and performance that blows the mclaren away (0-60 in 2.6) (0-100 in 7.5 was it?), with true lemans styling...so there's no guess as to which is faster...but the mclaren still just does it for me in terms of usability, still, with the side trunks and 3 seats....it's just a classic car that will never die...regardless of when cars get faster.

one more thing....i think you can still buy a dauer.....

Batmobile_Turbo
09-27-2003, 06:59 PM
i think the mclearen f1 is the best super car for everyday use, but the enzo is a more simple and comfortable to drive. i read the article in Road and Track on the Enzo and they said it rides over the road very smoothly. but sports car enthusiasts would still want the raw feel of the Mclaren. but for luxury and performance the Bugatti Veyron can't be beat. here are a few cars that can beat the mclaren for 0-60.

the Lamborghini Murcilago 4.3 (matches the Mclaren)
the Saleen S7 3.3
the Ferrarri Enzo 3.28
and the Bugatti Veron (i've heard 2.8)
all these are based off of the 3.4 second 0-60 for the Mclaren that road and track gives.

i think the enzo and veyron would be the most "ownable" supercars because of there ride smoothness

anyway all things considered the mclaren is still the perfect blend of performance and utility.

Egg Nog
09-28-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Batmobile_Turbo
i think the enzo and veyron would be the most "ownable" supercars because of there ride smoothness

Lack of storage space/capacity? They share a similar ride smoothness with the McLaren...

quackman
10-04-2003, 01:40 PM
well if you've ever read a review, or seen the top gear video test of the mclaren, it's not just performance that makes this car so special.
they took great care in every little detail of the car like the carbon fiber being perfect, whereas in the Enzo, the carbon fiber inside is described as looking "scrunched" around curves and creases.
and while I can't recall every little thing about the car, punch in mclaren f1 into google.com to read about it.
you will be astonished about all the unbeleiveable little details, like the engine bay lined in gold and whatnot.

white devil
10-04-2003, 02:09 PM
i think mac is one of the best car ever made .But what would it be without an BMW M POWER engine??????????


so i think all the suksess maclaren is getting is because of BMW

white devil
10-04-2003, 04:26 PM
look at the engine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!



BMW IS THE BEST

DwZX35
10-04-2003, 05:18 PM
Its Top Speed of 240 mph (ferrariENZO said the speedo said 240 but it went 217 according to a radar gun) has already been beaten, but the two cars that beat it arent in production....yet: The Bugatti Veyron (252 mph) and the Orca C113 (258 mph) and soon enough the ratio of the Saleen S7 will be modified by the company to go 240+ so yeah, it took ten long years but its happening
Edit: oh i thought you meant top speed

0-60 for veyron: 2.9 sec
0-60 for C113: 2.7 sec

Stratoraptor
10-06-2003, 08:52 PM
Originally posted by white devil
i think mac is one of the best car ever made .But what would it be without an BMW M POWER engine??????????


so i think all the suksess maclaren is getting is because of BMW

what would any car be without its engine?? thats like asking "what would a car be without wheels?" while the BMW engine is a big part of the F1 design, it not all of it. if u think that the F1 is just a BMW V12, then i guess an all carbon monocoque chassis or a superb six speed manual dont mean anything to u.

==============================================


Originally posted by DwZX35
Its Top Speed of 240 mph (ferrariENZO said the speedo said 240 but it went 217 according to a radar gun) has already been beaten, but the two cars that beat it arent in production....yet: The Bugatti Veyron (252 mph) and the Orca C113 (258 mph) and soon enough the ratio of the Saleen S7 will be modified by the company to go 240+ so yeah, it took ten long years but its happening
Edit: oh i thought you meant top speed

0-60 for veyron: 2.9 sec
0-60 for C113: 2.7 sec

im sorry to be the one to tell u, but the top speed and 0-60 figures for the Veyron r all estimated. what i mean is, Bugatti havent even created a final production version for the car yet, so how can u say that a car is that fast without it even being made? same goes with the C113, though it has been built, it hasnt been formally tested to pull such numbers.

also, about the gear ratio of the S7, where did u hear this from? it sounds pretty interesting...

chtulu69
10-14-2003, 01:37 AM
My favourite car always was the F1, and will always be something special. BUT now I thing Koenigsegg is the number one.

the specs;
Acceleration 0-100 km/h, 0-62 mp/h under 3.5 sec.
Top speed 390 km/h, 240 mp/h
Quarter mile time 10 sec, end speed 217 km/h

...and reviews;
"The Koenigsegg CC is the fastest car we've ever tested from 0-150mph!" ... "A 0-60mph time of 3.8 seconds is devastating by any rational comparison, but it doesn't break our best of 3.5 seconds for the Caterham R500, nor does it threaten the McLaren's production car record of 3.2 seconds. It's above 100mph, however, that the Koenigsegg really stretches its legs."
"To 140mph and 150mph, however, the Koenigsegg is the quickest we've ever driven, reaching the latter in a breathtaking 16.6 seconds."

...says alot. but it even looks great. I think its the most beutiful supercar ever built.

Egg Nog
10-14-2003, 05:46 PM
Again, can people read the first post in this thread?

It's become obvious that of course there are faster cars out there, but that's not what this is about... practicality and useability, my friends...

Egg Nog
01-15-2004, 09:14 PM
*Bump*

Let's see what everyone has to say now, seeing as the forums are much more popular.

NAZCA C2
01-15-2004, 10:59 PM
Mclaren F1 is the best car ever! Nuf said.

Evil Ewok
01-16-2004, 07:32 PM
To me, the car can never be dethroned and it's unquesitonable on why. Great engine, great racing history, and just an amazing car produced at the right time to be able to keep a following behind it a mile long and wide. This car to me is a god. It did everything right, won races, amazing combination of parts, an engine that just flew past anything, and still does except for 1 or 2. It is still my favorite bedroom wall pinup and probally will forever be. The quality, and the outstanding performance out performs anything that is out there today, hands down, and that's my opinion.

As to being usable and practical, you cant say "any" super car is seriously either of those. Usable, yes. Is it practical? No. Does it give car lovers hard on's? Yes. Some of the practicallity that was used in this car does suit the world we live in today (multiple people in car, not very spacious, but enough room) and other cominations that just fit into an overal good car....still my choice.

bum-man
01-17-2004, 12:36 AM
Again, can people read the first post in this thread?

It's become obvious that of course there are faster cars out there, but that's not what this is about... practicality and useability, my friends...
well if you put it that way...for practicality and useability this would probably be the worst car since the cars design was to save weight (does this thing even have a radio or a/c?) but for performance its an excelent car, but i think there are other super cars that are even better.

Egg Nog
01-19-2004, 12:13 AM
well if you put it that way...for practicality and useability this would probably be the worst car since the cars design was to save weight (does this thing even have a radio or a/c?) but for performance its an excelent car, but i think there are other super cars that are even better.

Well, "usable" should be used more to describe the fact that it has loads of luggage space and seats three, unlike basically any other supercar. Luxuries don't denote usability, seeing as (just for example purposes) leather seats aren't any more "usable" than cloth seats.

jameswithington
01-21-2004, 10:22 PM
This is not really related to the question on this thread but it's a neat little tangent on the McLaren F1 theme.

So you can't afford an F1 eh? Still fancy a bit of central driving position, 3 seater madness? Check out this little baby currently in development in the UK. Your own DIY McLaren F1 for under ten grand? Sign me up please!!!

www.aeonsportscars.co.uk

Egg Nog
01-21-2004, 11:04 PM
This is not really related to the question on this thread but it's a neat little tangent on the McLaren F1 theme.

So you can't afford an F1 eh? Still fancy a bit of central driving position, 3 seater madness? Check out this little baby currently in development in the UK. Your own DIY McLaren F1 for under ten grand? Sign me up please!!![/url]

Ohhh...that's awesome! Except for one thing...it's too bad that Aeon sportscars didn't have Peter Stevens working for them as McLaren did. The chassis kit is under £5000, though, so even with a custom body, it would still be a lot of car for the money!

Misho
01-22-2004, 09:52 AM
I think that the McLaren F1 just got dethroned by the Mercedes SLR as the most practical, everyday super car !

Egg Nog
01-22-2004, 07:36 PM
I think that the McLaren F1 just got dethroned by the Mercedes SLR as the most practical, everyday super car !

In a word, no. And yet somehow, yes. But not really. ;)

ezekielrage123
01-28-2004, 09:19 AM
Look, The koenigsegg will kick the shit out of the McLaren.
Koenigsegg already took the title of most powerful car in the Guinness book.
In a race Koenigsegg would win. Im sorry but 0-60 in 3.2 sec, and a top speed of 240mph! Go back to the lab and make another car McLaren.

Matra et Alpine
01-28-2004, 10:43 AM
Look, The koenigsegg will kick the shit out of the McLaren.
Koenigsegg already took the title of most powerful car in the Guinness book.
In a race Koenigsegg would win. Im sorry but 0-60 in 3.2 sec, and a top speed of 240mph! Go back to the lab and make another car McLaren.
A mroe realistic test of a super sportscar has been the track and driver TopGear have been using.
It didn't beat the Zonda or the Lambo.
I'm not sure where the McLaren came - but it's an old car now :)
When 'K' prove it at Le Mans then it can maybe be considered for 'shit kicking' until then it's a prima-donna and as Clarkson described it "heavy steering, heavy clutch, heavy gearbox" for me that takes it WELL OUT of supercar class where everything should be perfect for the driver.
If McLaren weren't M-Bs lapdog, they may have been capable of adding s blower to the F1. After all that's all the 'K' has going for it performance wise :)

Egg Nog
01-28-2004, 10:57 AM
Look, The koenigsegg will kick the shit out of the McLaren.
Koenigsegg already took the title of most powerful car in the Guinness book.
In a race Koenigsegg would win. Im sorry but 0-60 in 3.2 sec, and a top speed of 240mph! Go back to the lab and make another car McLaren.

Sorry, but you completely missed the entire point of this thread. I think you should go back and read the very first post.

ezekielrage123
01-29-2004, 04:40 PM
Sorry, but you completely missed the entire point of this thread. I think you should go back and read the very first post.

No i understood, and in my opinon the Koenigsegg is a better car. I had the honor of sitting in a McLaren once and ill tell u something its not that comftorable, and when it drives the seats feel lose and it sounds like somethings rattling. Dont get me wrong the McLaren is a great car, but you can't be serious about taking a car like that off the track, its not the kind of car that people can drive to the grocery store even if you had the money to buy one, and by the way its more than DOUBLE the price of a Koenigsegg. Take a look and you should be able to tell that the Koenigsegg is more comftorable. Now responding to the post before Eggnog by the Alpine guy JEREMY CLARKSON isn't the only guy that drove the Koenigsegg, and he even said and i quote from the video "Shootout":
"This is my new favorite supercar".
Put simply i would rather have a cheaper, more comftorable, and faster Koenigsegg over a McLaren.

isenspen007
01-29-2004, 05:29 PM
However there are many new supercars that can compete with it at this point in time.

GT500
01-29-2004, 08:41 PM
overall, the F1 is highly ranked, but new cars comign out are in a way "dethroning" it performance-wise. Of course the McLaren and most all other supercars are not bought for the great deals and value, but more for those rich people who can afford to have them to drive "for fun" (damn them....).

Right now a number of cars out-perform the McLaren, the Chyrsler ME (concept), the Veyron, the Enzo (i believe it does....), the CC, the Lingenfelter Vette (tuned though w/ 802 hp and 0-60 1.97, 100 in 4.43, 1/4 mile 8.95 (www.lingenfelter.com)).....the list keeps gettign bigger. But as said earlier, the F1 and its awesome styling will always be something special.

werty
01-29-2004, 09:10 PM
i think the F1 is alright,kinda starting to become outdated
i think that they should redesign
you know maybe make the entire chassis and body from new carbon fiber
maybe they could make it faster,.......... or more illegal!

For right now though, i'd say the enzo and veyron are the best supercars around

Egg Nog
01-29-2004, 09:40 PM
i think the F1 is alright,kinda starting to become outdated
i think that they should redesign
you know maybe make the entire chassis and body from new carbon fiber
maybe they could make it faster,.......... or more illegal!

For right now though, i'd say the enzo and veyron are the best supercars around

Gordan Murray has already said that if he was to do the f1 again, he would do basically everything the same way.

I don't quite understand... the F1 chassis and body is already made from carbon fibre. "New carbon fibre"? There haven't really been any major advances in CF technology since 1993 :)

Personally, I think that if the same car was created in 2004, nobody would think that it's outdated or aged at all. Everyone would be shocked and amazed at the concept of a brand new 3-seater (!) supercar.

I also don't understand one thing: People say that the McLaren is uncomfortable and has a lacklustre interior, and then they go on to promote the Enzo as its userper. What!? The Enzo's interior is about as bare-bones as they come! Not that there's anything wrong with that :)

werty
01-30-2004, 09:14 AM
Gordan Murray has already said that if he was to do the f1 again, he would do basically everything the same way.

I don't quite understand... the F1 chassis and body is already made from carbon fibre. "New carbon fibre"? There haven't really been any major advances in CF technology since 1993 :)

Personally, I think that if the same car was created in 2004, nobody would think that it's outdated or aged at all. Everyone would be shocked and amazed at the concept of a brand new 3-seater (!) supercar.

I also don't understand one thing: People say that the McLaren is uncomfortable and has a lacklustre interior, and then they go on to promote the Enzo as its userper. What!? The Enzo's interior is about as bare-bones as they come! Not that there's anything wrong with that :)

no advances in carbon fiber design, of course there are
the new Porsche gt has state of the art carbon fiber chassis
i'm sure there is some room for improvement in the CF, engine, and maybe even the aerodynamics

Matra et Alpine
01-30-2004, 10:09 AM
no advances in carbon fiber design, of course there are
the new Porsche gt has state of the art carbon fiber chassis
i'm sure there is some room for improvement in the CF, engine, and maybe even the aerodynamics
I think werty, that "state of the art" is just the marketing hype.
There has been no significant advance in the fibres.
But few cars provide CF mono construction in the "mass market" so for them it IS state of the art.

What there has been is a wider usage of computer modelling to tune the CF monocoque construction.
Now Gordon Murray had access to the best that F1 had in 93 and finite modelling systems haven't changed dramatically other than in price and number of elements modelled. So it may be that Murray's model may have had less elements. For a monocoque that may NOT be a big issue.

Same with engine and aerodynamics.
Porsche had shown they couldn't really compete in F1 design, so the premise that Murray had better technology then than Porsche have *may* be true.
But equally you could contend that Porsche know more about street car design and could maybe model it better by understanding the issues better.

uk83
02-10-2004, 07:04 PM
mmmm,

most owneble supercar....?

easy McLaren F1 LM

roadcar and i still think its tha car 2 beat for any of the competetors like:
cc, zonda, cc... and that crappy veyron wouldnt even be close :P

Weight 1062 kg / 2341.3 lbs

Top Speed 224.9 mph / 362.0 km/h

0-60 mph Acceleration 2.90 s

outperform that. and think that back then the lookst of the car were quite new + 1062 kg.... the enzo can suck a point on that :P

Burrito
02-11-2004, 05:47 AM
if I'm not mistaken the veyron is supposed to do 406 km/h?

NoOne
02-11-2004, 08:35 AM
if I'm not mistaken the veyron is supposed to do 406 km/h?
Keyword here is "supposed", until they start making production models instead of "prototypes" the claim remains unfounded. Unless I'm mistaken, even the prototypes haven't managed to attain the claimed performance projections.

Scientist
02-11-2004, 09:10 AM
Keyword here is "supposed", until they start making production models instead of "prototypes" the claim remains unfounded. Unless I'm mistaken, even the prototypes haven't managed to attain the claimed performance projections.

That's right, I read somewhere that the engine and the car weren't the problem, it's the tyres. The tyres 'only' went to 360 km/h. They have to design special tyres and test it again.

Evil Ewok
01-04-2005, 09:43 PM
Reworking with some Titanium and Kevlar in the engine would do them some good. They could also work those two mediums into their body, frame, etc. I havn't seen to much titanium work in the engine bay, but from what I can tell it is a great material to work with for durability and longeivity.

man 430gt
01-05-2005, 09:23 AM
who would buy a F1 over this...
just kidding! the best sport car are lamborghini murcielago, FERRARI enzo and bugati veyron mc is great but its not a ferrari! he he
I agree, but what the hell is that?

ZeTurbo
01-05-2005, 03:31 PM
The McLaren F1 is a truly great car and I love it but it is just a bit ugly. Sure it is fast, very fast but isn't the Veyron faster.
lets wait untill/whenever/if the veyron reaches production and then we will talk.

CdocZ
01-05-2005, 03:32 PM
ok, who voted for the "ricer's stupidity option"? :p

ZeTurbo
01-05-2005, 03:45 PM
ok, who voted for the "ricer's stupidity option"? :p
i did... it was too hard to resist!!

ok guys there is someone missing here.

PELOTON!

WHERE THE MCLAREN MAN???PELOTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!

ScionDriver
01-05-2005, 06:46 PM
Sorry the Mac HAS been dethroned by the KOENIGSEGG!! Soon also the Bugatti Veyron. Hopefully soon......

F1_Master
01-05-2005, 06:52 PM
You need to read. He's talking everything else besides speed. And BTW, until the production Veyrons start passing it, its not.

CdocZ
01-05-2005, 06:53 PM
the bugatti was too un-aerodynamic to meet its goals.....so they havent allowed it into production on the original time they wanted it to be released (beating the f1 pretty much). so....2007 is the current prediction for its finish, right?

Egg Nog
01-05-2005, 07:10 PM
You need to read. He's talking everything else besides speed. And BTW, until the production Veyrons start passing it, its not.

Thanks :) It needed to be said :D

Coventrysucks
01-05-2005, 07:26 PM
Sorry the Mac HAS been dethroned by the KOENIGSEGG!!

I still haven't seen any proof of the Koenigsegg's 240mph+ capabilities, untill then it hasn't dethroned anything.


they havent allowed it into production on the original time they wanted it to be released (beating the f1 pretty much).

Wha..?
"beating the f1 pretty much"
You don't mean they wanted to release the Veyron before the F1, do you?


so....2007 is the current prediction for its finish, right?

Last I heard they were going to start production in May.

CdocZ
01-05-2005, 07:29 PM
this may?! oh, woops, nvm what i said, just realized that magazine is kinda old. well.....not really beat the f1, but thats basically what its going to do once it meets its goals

PininfarinaPIMP
01-08-2005, 01:04 PM
The McLaren would have bean beaten by the ME412 if they had brought it into production, i still like the Enzo better...

Egg Nog
01-08-2005, 04:44 PM
The McLaren would have bean beaten by the ME412 if they had brought it into production, i still like the Enzo better...

Read the first post.

This thread is not about performance

KeRmIt
01-08-2005, 06:07 PM
ummm in reference to motorhead... i dont get what your um trying to point out? ur acting like a little baby (its not mclarens engine) whooooo cares buddy who cares? mclaren designed it and mclaren did all the thinkin on the thing ... bmw just put it together WOW mclaren didnt put it together lets all hate the car for that reason ... geez grow up man grow up ..

Esperante
01-08-2005, 06:25 PM
who would buy a F1 over this...
just kidding! the best sport car are lamborghini murcielago, FERRARI enzo and bugati veyron mc is great but its not a ferrari! he he
What do you have against the Heauliez Pregunta? HUH?

Anyway, I wouldn't take one, the body styling just doesn't do it for me, but I do love the 3 seat configuration and huge interior. If I could have any supercar, it would be the ME412. Good looking inside and out, and blows the doors off the Enzo and F1. Second choice Saleen or Enzo. 3rd, probably F1.

PininfarinaPIMP
01-09-2005, 02:11 PM
**** OFF, im not talking about performance you ***********, im talking about looks, Enzo takes first...

Rockefella
01-09-2005, 02:14 PM
**** OFF, im not talking about performance you **********, im talking about looks, Enzo takes first...
dont have 2 much fun during the ban

Egg Nog
01-09-2005, 03:29 PM
**** OFF, im not talking about performance you ***********, im talking about looks, Enzo takes first...

1. You didn't at any time reference what you were talking about. Saying that something is "better" doesn't denote any kind of context.

2. If you are talking about looks, you obviously still don't understand the thread at all.

Devilred
01-10-2005, 10:37 PM
i dont know how some of you can say that the mclaren is ugly.... i guess its a matter of opinion, but it is my opinion that it look thousands of times better that "allien ship wanabe" ENZO... ah, and the zonda is nice, but it isnt that pretty...

shadow
01-17-2005, 04:24 AM
im dusting off the flame-proof suit, but i think the pagani zonda c12 roadster would be just as, if not more ownable than a mclaren f1. however this is assuming you were referring to the base f1, but offer me one of those yellow f1 LM's, i'm off! i have a soft spot for yellow cars. forgive me for saying this, but i thought the dc4 integra type R looked great in yellow. i know this isnt the asian cars forum but at least i'm inside my flame proof suit now, i'll be right

sandwich
01-17-2005, 08:30 AM
While I agree that the Zonda is "ownable" in that it is comfortable and high performance without being useless, I think that the maccy offers similar, if not more comfort, along with better performance. Yes, you could pick up a pizza in the zonda, but if you take the mac out, it won't be cold by the time you get home.

shadow
01-19-2005, 03:09 AM
haha. i'll take the cold pizza, besides, if this thread was about performance, i'd have my pizza delivered

sandwich
01-19-2005, 06:18 PM
ah...i see we just had a little tussle about performance...

anyways, i think the mac is equal or better than any other supercar out there, but offers certain things they can't meet...like room for 3 and small trunks, solid kit, and a suspension designed to meet the needs of high speed and comfort as well.

F1_Master
01-19-2005, 06:23 PM
The McLaren may not have looks, but it still holds it own considering its age against new supercars.

The McLaren has held the world record for years.
So don't bring this "OMFG!11! The Koenigsegg" or "Veyron is faster!111!!"
B/c until an official test is done, the CCR and Veyron have nothing.

I say we start talking about other things about the F1 like the storage compartment, or MPG instead of all this horsepower rubbish.

Egg Nog
01-19-2005, 09:17 PM
I say we start talking about other things about the F1 like the storage compartment, or MPG instead of all this horsepower rubbish.

That's what this entire thread is about! :) - Most people don't seem to be getting at all :D

targa
01-19-2005, 10:54 PM
the only thing i dont like about the F1 is that the other two seats are recessed a bit. i like to be next to someone, not infront.

What
01-20-2005, 12:24 AM
the only thing i dont like about the F1 is that the other two seats are recessed a bit. i like to be next to someone, not infront.

The only thing that I don't like about the F1 was that it was designed to be the ultimate "road" car, not the ultimate performance car. The F1's acceleration and top speed are wonderful, but it's handling is so average...well, below average for a supercar. It's really dissappointing that the F1 does so well in a straight line, but would probably lose at a track to a Ferrari F430 because of it's soft suspension. I think it was a bad choice for Gordon Murray to go that route with the F1. But oh well...

The Koenigsegg has yet to be tested, the Veyron will be aerodynamically limited to under 220(the jackasses decided to do "function follows form" instead of "form follows function"), and the ME-412 won't be produced. Maybe the Saleen S7-TT will do it...but I doubt it.

fa22_raptor
01-20-2005, 12:34 AM
The F1's handling isn't THAT bad is it? Compared to other more modern supercars, the F1 is definitely a lightweight and that will without doubt help it when handling despite its "soft suspension". I've heard that it's an awesome handler.

What
01-20-2005, 12:40 AM
The F1's handling isn't THAT bad is it? Compared to other more modern supercars, the F1 is definitely a lightweight and that will without doubt help it when handling despite its "soft suspension". I've heard that it's an awesome handler.

The McLaren F1 is probably a delightful handler on the street. But on a track, it doesn't do so well. Ever seen footage of a McLaren F1 at a track? That thing pitches and rolls all over the place. Even in a straight line you can see the car "bucking" as the driver shifts gears. The car's handling is "crisp", "responsive", and has "plenty feeling", but it has low limits. Posting .86 g's on a skidpad and 64 mph slalom speeds are no where near expected supercar handling levels. Those are sub-Celica specs.

fa22_raptor
01-20-2005, 12:45 AM
Oh ok, fair enough. Hopefully they should have seen this and accordingly adjusted the suspension on the LM and GTR editions. The F1s that competed at LeMans were suprrreeeeemee machines in most aspects, so hopefully the road-going editions were the same. The "normal" F1 was more of a rich-man's supercar hence necessitating softer suspension, but the LM and GTR were more pure race-bred machines. Of course, since the suspension doesn't affect maximum speed, the "normal" F1 was still able to claim the world record merely for bragging rights. :D
That's just what I think though...

Coventrysucks
01-20-2005, 07:38 AM
but it's handling is so average...well, below average for a supercar.

Says the man who has driven do many F1s in his time...

I have never seen a test drive describing the F1 as "average" in any way - on what are you basing that assumption?

Quoting skidpan and slalom tests only proves the F1 wasn't built or set up to excell at skidpan and slalom tests.

Saying that the suspension is too soft for the track, but acknowledging that the F1 was set up for the road, not track, isn't especially clever either.

Surely if the F1 is set up to be the ultimate road car, if it beats other supercars on the road then that is what matters?

It should only need to beat other supercars round a track if it was the ultimate track car, but it isn't.

Anyway, McLaren already built the ultimate track car in 1988...
;)

Mdbgtft
01-20-2005, 07:51 AM
I like the F1. End of story :D

What
01-21-2005, 12:31 PM
Quoting skidpan and slalom tests only proves the F1 wasn't built or set up to excell at skidpan and slalom tests.

Saying that the suspension is too soft for the track, but acknowledging that the F1 was set up for the road, not track, isn't especially clever either.

Clever? I'm not trying to be "clever" or write a negative summary about the McLaren F1. Skidpad and slalom numbers are the basic "handling" numbers of a car. So if we replace "skidpad and slalom" with "handling" your sentence would read..."...the F1 wasn't built or set up to excell at HANDLING tests....", and you'd be right, and that's why I don't really like it. A "supercar" should excell on the road and track, in my opinion. Paying $1,000,000 bucks for only half of what I believe it should do is ridiculous to me. Paying $1,000,000 bucks for a SUPERCAR that handles as well as a Civic Si or a Mustang GT SUCKS.

As for as handling goes, the F1 SUCKS. It's basically an exotic musclecar. It's best when driven in a straight line. The Enzo, F40, Jaguar XJ220, and many others handle much better than the "almighty" F1, but are half the price. I love the car because of the quality it was made, it's speed, and the fact that it does exactly what the designer intended it to do. I only wish the designer was more conscerned about handling. It's ashame that the car pegged as the "ultimate supercar" isn't really the ultimate supercar at all.

THE F1'S HANDLING ISN'T UP TO SUPERCAR STANDARDS. It's well below them. It's one of the worst performing supercars since 95' in handling test.

Coventrysucks
01-21-2005, 01:49 PM
Skidpad and slalom numbers are the basic "handling" numbers of a car. So if we replace "skidpad and slalom" with "handling" your sentence would read..."...the F1 wasn't built or set up to excell at HANDLING tests...."

Err, no. skidpan and slalom tests don't test handling, only driving in a big circle, and a slalom.

Very different from any real life driving situations I can think of, and there are a thousand and one aspects of handling that those tests don't take into account, especially on roads.


As for as handling goes, the F1 SUCKS.

You can say this with such authority because you own one? You've driven one?

Yeah, right.

I think I'll listen to the opinions of people who have driven and owned the car, rather than you.

Matra et Alpine
01-21-2005, 04:32 PM
As for as handling goes, the F1 SUCKS. It's basically an exotic musclecar. It's best when driven in a straight line.
Wow, I'm astounded then that the F1 won sooooo many GT races for years all around the world. All those other cars on the race track must have been worse then :)

What
01-21-2005, 04:38 PM
Wow, I'm astounded then that the F1 won sooooo many GT races for years all around the world. All those other cars on the race track must have been worse then :)
I'm talking about the road legal F1's, not the GTR's. They're quite different.

Matra et Alpine
01-21-2005, 04:44 PM
I'm talking about the road legal F1's, not the GTR's. They're quite different.
Only the long tails were radically different.

It's the same suspension mounting points, different rated springs and shock absorbers for different tracks.

ANY F1 customer could ask the factory to retrofit the GTR comopnents and many did. ( retrofitting the weight reduction I'm not so sure they achieved :) )

Voila the SAME handling !!!!
from qv500 excellent site on the F1 "the ride height was lowered by 45mm at the front and 40mm at the rear while rigid aluminium suspension bushes were fitted in place of the rubber production units. The standard F1's camber geometry was retained although the GTR ’95 did get carbon brake discs and bigger 18-inch OZ magnesium wheels"

KnifeEdge_2K1
01-21-2005, 06:25 PM
magnesium wheels dont work well in real life. in racing its fine cuz the teams can afford to have piles and piles of em but in real life the magnesium is prone to micro fractures which under stress will split and warp

F1_Master
01-21-2005, 06:38 PM
FYI What.

The F1's birth came in the early 90's. Long before Enzo (the car of course) was born. The technology of the 90's is nowhere near today's.

So comparing decade old technology to that of a 2004 Supercar that has some of the most advanced technology for its time is fair? FYI, in the early 90's, handling like the F1's was remarkable. Today, its newer technology.

So don't try to compare decade old engineering to the most advanced engineering now.

Its like comparing Window's '95 to an Alienware. :rolleyes:

Egg Nog
01-21-2005, 06:49 PM
magnesium wheels dont work well in real life. in racing its fine cuz the teams can afford to have piles and piles of em but in real life the magnesium is prone to micro fractures which under stress will split and warp

I have never heard of any case where magnesium wheels have been any sort of problem in "real life". It's not like they're racing-specific, you know. They offer them on Volkswagen Jettas.

Coventrysucks
01-21-2005, 07:20 PM
Rowan Atkinson, evo 68, Porsche Carrera GT vs McLaren F1 @ Goodwood:

"One of the challenges of Goodwood is that it is not a smooth track. It's quite bumpy and undulating, in truth quite similar in its variety to the open road. It's nice when a car feels taut but the Carrera GT felt positively high strung. Snappy, you might say. When the rear of the car stepped out of line, it seemed to go very quickly indeed. It's set up to understeer in the traditional way and of course it has tenacious grip, but a tad too much power, or a bump at an unexpected moment in the middle of a fast corner and the adrenalin rush is unwelcome and life threatening.
The McLaren was a much more relaxing experience. The central driving position suddenly feels so right. You'd think that with a higher power-to-weight ratio and no stability or traction electronics, it would be more challenging. No way. The car is a bit more softly sprung, with higher profile tyres, and when it moves around it is far more progressive and friendly. I'm sure that the Porsche has the greater lateral grip and, in the right hands, on a tighter track, might even post quicker lap times, but I couldn't help feeling that the McLaren driver would be having the more fun."

"Sucks"? 'What' a load of bollocks! :rolleyes:

Matra et Alpine
01-22-2005, 06:09 AM
I have never heard of any case where magnesium wheels have been any sort of problem in "real life". It's not like they're racing-specific, you know. They offer them on Volkswagen Jettas.
?what?

Magnesium is a stronger lighter metal but it is flawed in it's high-tensile strength is prone to cracking under stress. So where other "softer" alloys will distort slightly, the magnesium doesn't, this causes fracture rather than bend.
Micro fractures lead to failure modes.

WOw a jetta with "mag" wheels ? Is it maybe not a 'con' as in the called the wheels that and they're not actualy MADE of magnesium ? Or most likely, that they are a magnesium alloy - the alloy reducing the rigidity adn protecting from the stress fracturing of full mag. Anothe 'trick' is to use mag as part fo a split rim, so the rims are alloy and the 'spokes' mag ??

Egg Nog
01-22-2005, 03:01 PM
?what?

Magnesium is a stronger lighter metal but it is flawed in it's high-tensile strength is prone to cracking under stress. So where other "softer" alloys will distort slightly, the magnesium doesn't, this causes fracture rather than bend.
Micro fractures lead to failure modes.

WOw a jetta with "mag" wheels ? Is it maybe not a 'con' as in the called the wheels that and they're not actualy MADE of magnesium ? Or most likely, that they are a magnesium alloy - the alloy reducing the rigidity adn protecting from the stress fracturing of full mag. Anothe 'trick' is to use mag as part fo a split rim, so the rims are alloy and the 'spokes' mag ??

So the high-end wheels on the McLaren are actually pure magnesium? Now that I didn't realize... ;)

KnifeEdge_2K1
01-22-2005, 03:35 PM
pure magnesium reacts with almost anything, i woudlnt want to drive around in that

Egg Nog
01-22-2005, 04:18 PM
pure magnesium reacts with almost anything, i woudlnt want to drive around in that

Yeah, your wheels would become just a little bit bright if they got too warm :)

So Matra, what's the deal with the McLaren wheels?

Matra et Alpine
01-22-2005, 05:30 PM
Yeah, your wheels would become just a little bit bright if they got too warm :)

So Matra, what's the deal with the McLaren wheels?
bad use of words on my part.

As already stated I agree NO wheels can be pure magnesium as the slightest damage to the coating and it will corrode badly and even if heated could spontaneoulsy combust :) The highest content ones in racing used to tbhe the Halibrands IIRC and they came with a special coating which was part gold. They used to look awesome.


It is always alloyed. There are many alloys availabel and in use in motorsport and aircraft. They range from VERY light, VERY tough to softer, heavier.

Early alloys contain 2 to 10% Aluminium, combined with minor additions of zinc and manganese.

Newer, more exotics contain rare earth, zinc, thorium, silver etc except aluminum, all containing a small but effective zirconium content that imparts a fine grain structure and thus improved mechanical properties. <-- foudn out about these with a little help from google :)

Not sure which alloy the F1 used. Or what McLaren used in their early single seaters where they replaced Aluminium panels with "magnesium".

Cadillac Imaj
01-22-2005, 10:08 PM
I think it certainly will be by a car named the Saleen S7 twin-turbo!