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

[nthfinity]

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97397&page=3

Originally Posted by nthfinity
holy crap! i was wondering if you still existed! (from jabbasworld.net)

anyway... heres what i have to say:
i have tremendous respect for Gordon Murray; he is a brilliant engineer and car designer.

but the macca just does nothing for me. it was set to such a standard that nobody wanted one. every bit of practicallity designed into it has no real life practicallity... its storage space is a joke; yet by volume, it has more then enough.

it was a marketing flop, a comercial flop; and the reason why it took MB 10 years+ to allow mclaren to build a new road car... which couldn't stack upto the original... and has become a flop itself (to a lesser degree... a 400,000 car that isnt selling fast enough for the second-hand market to be behind it)

the car didnt have an actual aim at what it did best... besides become the king of top end once BMW produced one of the greatest engines we have ever seen. its not a track day car; but its not an everyday car... and as advanced as the materials were; that is where the revolutions ended. long has it been said that Ameritech took quite the financial loss in this car.

the focus of this car was lacking... but it was unique. with engineering schooling my thoughts, i should love this car... but i dont, like i love the Veyron... the F40... the F50... the Veyron is a design focus that was forced to become an engineering marvel within its own skin... that is something that Murray wouldn't have dreamt... making a car beautiful, and stupifyingly fast... and a reliable trans.


1. the car had over 300 orders when there was only to be 100 made. It was pre-sold out before it was even released. It has never had a problem selling. Even a used one on the market these days doesnt last very long.

2. It has more storange space then any supercar. Three seats. Store doors on the sides of the car. Anyways, its a supercar...want storage, buy an SUV.

3. When it was tested by Fifth Gear/Top gear...they said it was a very practical supercar. Easy to drive around town and just cruise in.

4. marketing/ commercial flop? Dude, the car pre-sold out before being released. Refer #1.

5. The car did not lose money...but nothing was made on it. The Bugatti Veyron costs $5,000,000+ to produce, but is only being sold for $1.5 million. Gordon Murray was smart. He didnt want a huge financial loss. Bugatti(VW) made a car just to beat the Mclaren. That was their only goal.

6. The Mclaren held the top speed record for 11+ years. It was made to be the ultimate supercar. It achieved that and held it for so long.

All in all. The Mclaren F1 is still the best car ever made in my opinion.


um... ok............. :lol:

but wait!

Originally Posted by nthfinity
it was set to such a standard that nobody wanted one.



I sure did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nthfinity
every bit of practicality designed into it has no real life practicallity... its storage space is a joke; yet by volume, it has more then enough.


No real life practicallity? I went on a trip in a Mclaren F1 to spend a couple of days at the beach last month. With the custom luggage, there was plenty of room for our stuff.......for all THREE of us. Yes three. Try that in any other supercar.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nthfinity
it was a marketing flop, a comercial flop; and the reason why it took MB 10 years+ to allow mclaren to build a new road car... which couldn't stack upto the original... and has become a flop itself (to a lesser degree... a 400,000 car that isnt selling fast enough for the second-hand market to be behind it)



Marketing flop? Maybe you're thinking of the XJ220 (I like that car too), which now sells at about 1/4 it's original price by the way. The F1 is close to triple now.
And the SLR was a corporate creation, the F1 basically a singular vision.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nthfinity
the car didnt have an actual aim at what it did best... besides become the king of top end once BMW produced one of the greatest engines we have ever seen. its not a track day car; but its not an everyday car... and as advanced as the materials were; that is where the revolutions ended. long has it been said that Ameritech took quite the financial loss in this car.



What? The design and execution of the F1 revolved around a very specific set of goals, and the proof is right there to see.....painfully obvious. By the way, "top end" was NEVER a goal of Murray's, it was a by-product.
It's a great track car, expensive but great. Almost as fast as my Group C2 LeMans car, but with a/c.
Ameritech took a loss? Why are you talking about them? Ameritech was a small US company that did some F1 conversions to US spec, but old Dick eventually turned out to be a crook. (I owned a Ferrari he converted and F*&^ed up).


Quote:
Originally Posted by nthfinity
the focus of this car was lacking... but it was unique. with engineering schooling my thoughts, i should love this car... but i dont, like i love the Veyron... the F40... the F50... the Veyron is a design focus that was forced to become an engineering marvel within its own skin... that is something that Murray wouldn't have dreamt... making a car beautiful, and stupifyingly fast... and a reliable trans.


The focus was crystal clear, and the execution nearly flawless. Are your goggles foggy?

As far as the Veyron being a beautiful "design focus that was forced to become an engineering marvel within its own skin" well........my head is spinning after that one.
im sure more to follow :lol:

[sentra_dude]

Why open this can of worms again? It has already been beaten to death in countless threads, every possible angle has been discussed, and no one is going to change their opinion, so what's the point?

[nthfinity]

1. i didn't mean to

2. i think it is quite comical

3. the F1 does suck, and people still think its the best thing since Soap

4. people need to realize #3 is correct, and it isnt the best thing since soap

[sentra_dude]

Just taking one quote from the FChat thread,


Having been fortunate enough to spend several days in one, I can say with all authority that, you sir, do not know of which you speak. Driving this car is an ultimate thrill. It way surpasses "just another 90's supercar".

When hearing someone who actually drove the car say that (its FChat, so pretty good chance the guy did actually drive it) how can you say it sucks? Whatever, no point in arguing. No one needs to realize it sucks, the pro-F1 crowd and anti-F1 crowd just need to agree to disagree.


(btw, the above quote was in response to this:)
Originally Posted by Miura Jota
I'm sick and tired of guys claiming : Mc Laren is the world's best
just because is ridiculously expensive
just because it was made in very low numbers (about 100)

if it was produced in larger numbers then it would be just another great 90's supercar IMHO

[gigdy]

1. Im setting a rule for this thread

2. All posts must now be in list form.

3. I heart boobs.

[nthfinity]

1. Im setting a rule for this thread

2. All posts must now be in list form.

3. I heart boobs.
1. your rule is heard

so what if somebody who drove it thinkts its better then soap. my logic is infallable hehe, jabba would agree... im sure on at least a few points :lol:

where is the rest of the anti-macca squad :wink: :P

[blah]

1. Im setting a rule for this thread

2. All posts must now be in list form.

3. I heart boobs.
1. your rule is heard

so what if somebody who drove it thinkts its better then soap. my logic is infallable hehe, jabba would agree... im sure on at least a few points :lol:

where is the rest of the anti-macca squad :wink: :P

BMW N.A V12 that took over 10 years to be beaten by forced induction, with gold plated heat shields. What isnt there to like. :lol:

[LotusGT1]

Hey, you use the same retarted arguments as in the McLaren F1 topic in the "Cool Wall" section (whcih miraculously disappeared). I don't see how this is humor as your logic is obviously flawed, and your conclusions wrong. But whatever floats your boat.

LOL@thinking the Veyron comes remotely close to the F1 in terms of supercar credibility and focus.

[Shinigami]

I like how people who have never driven the F1, SLR, Veyron etc, have the authority to say that "they suck", based purely on the amount of cars that were/are being sold.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one should drive it before commenting on it in this way. Sucking has nothing to do with it being a commercial flop. Many cars suck, yet sell extremely well *shrug*

So, what supercar do you guys drive again ;) ?

[LotusGT1]

Ha, I've been reading the whole thread, never seen so much bullshit.

[saadie]

Ha, I've been reading the whole thread, never seen so much bullshit.
:lol::lol:

I like how people who have never driven the F1, SLR, Veyron etc, have the authority to say that "they suck", based purely on the amount of cars that were/are being sold.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one should drive it before commenting on it in this way. Sucking has nothing to do with it being a commercial flop. Many cars suck, yet sell extremely well *shrug*

So, what supercar do you guys drive again ;) ?
you are soo right ....

but you know .. the veyron drives like crap :P

really ... remember when the veyron didnt come out .... during testing ... the car spun .. the driver tried to give it some traction but the wheels started spinning ... which wansnt all that much of help ...
anwyays .... F1 isnt that bad:prr:

[Shinigami]

but you know .. the veyron drives like crap :P

really ... remember when the veyron didnt come out .... during testing ... the car spun .. the driver tried to give it some traction but the wheels started spinning ... which wansnt all that much of help ...
anwyays .... F1 isnt that bad:prr:
Funny how a guy I know drove the Veyron in the rain at over 200kph and kept perfect control of the car.

He said (and he's driven a lot of supercars), that the Veyron was simply out of this world, handled extremely well, had great grip, etc... etc...

I'll know for sure when I drive one this summer ;)

[DeMoN]

I agree with ALL the responces that guy did to you from Fchat. Much more money and much less profit is obtained from the Veyron. Besides, I dont recall there being news saying "McLaren F1 needs special tires and the brakes are being checked." The Veyron had many flaws and it was delayed so many times.

The McLaren F1 got to the top speed it did, by "accident." Better put, by perfect design. The Butatti was built just to beat the top speed. That was the only thing in mind so I dont see how you can think the view for the Veyron, and the population target aim, was more clear. I dont see the McLaren F1 needing a special key to release the limiters and allow you to go top speed. Veyron is just too much junk and electronics to be a true supercar.

All in all, it took veyron 11 years and 1001 (more than TWICE) the amount of HP the F1 has to beat it. I dont call that a victory. The McLaren F1 looks prettier and has 3 seats, something NO other car has.

The only thing the veyron is the winner at is at weight, god damn it weighs a lot for being a "supercar."

For all I know, the McLaren F1 was design to be the best it could be with the available knowledge of the 90's (wasnt made for a particular group of buyers in mind like you speculate) unlike the Veyron which was just made to beat the top speed record.

[mindgam3]

I think this will be a never ending arguement.

But two things to take into account:

1. The macca is the superior car

2. Number one :P

[sameerrao]

Nth your are on your own here .. McLaren F1 is a very special car built to a very unique and exacting specification. Read the book "Driving ambition" to appreciate the car's specialness.

And the point about the clutch, yes it lasts 3,000 miles but it was one of those things that would have been improved if the car remained in production for longer. And BTW, cars like the F50 also have some unique "service" requirements like changing the entire rubber fuel tank every 10 years or so.

If you can spend USD 1.3 MM on a car, you can spend $30K to service it.

Remember the car was produced at a time when there was a global collapse of the stock markets triggered from Asia - so it was a bad time to be selling million dollar supercars.

[DeMoN]

Most the car-enthuthiasts I know prefer the McLaren F1. Not that that matters, however, Tiff liking McLaren F1 more than the Butatti does. IMO the Veyron tries to be too many things at once, classy, fast, luxurious, confortable, and a little bit of each doesnt cut it. The McLaren F1's shape was determined by wind tunnels alone, unlike the veyron. Veyron was "designed" to look like that and even though McLaren F1 wasnt, it still is prettier.

I want to see them do a racing version of the Veyron and it have more success than the McLaren F1 racers.

[nthfinity]

two entirely different fields of cars. the Veyron had specific targets they set out to reach; and atchieved, or overachieved each point... very german.

the F1 was not designed in a wind tunnel; but rather with aerodyamics in mind. the bugatti was designed, the honed in the wind tunnel.

[McLaren4eVa]

Total Bullshit the macca was a sensational car and it neva made a penny for mclaren yet didn't lose any money either(whereas bugatti lose 3.5 mil on each car and they're making 300 thats over 900 mil loss). I think there's a heck of alot of people that will totally disagree with you on that point, martin brundle , tiff needell etc. It was a technological marvel for its time just like the veyron is now. The McLaren Mercedes SLR was built for a mercedes customer in mind whereas had it been the McLaren Mercedes SLR things will have undoubtedly been different. And not to mention in its second year of productions its sold 1000 cars not im not sure but for supercars is that a bad thing. But Nthfinity if you wish to believe it sucks than go ahead but im sure theres plenty of people who thin The F1 is the still the best - me included.

[sameerrao]

the F1 was not designed in a wind tunnel; but rather with aerodyamics in mind. the bugatti was designed, the honed in the wind tunnel.

BS ... There are 10 pages in the book "Driving Ambition" devoted to aerodynamics related work on the F1 in a wind tunnel. The basic concept was not merely hit a target coeff of drag but to get the right centre of pressure. They also checked the movement of CoP underr different circumstances, braking, accelaration, etc. The diffuser fine-tuning took place here.

I think you really need to read up about the car before you comment.

The Veyron is 10 years younger to the f1 and the world of aerodynamics has progressed a lot since then as can be seen in the F1 racing world. But in its time, the F1 was perhaps the most painstakingly thought about car built to an exacting vision of a brilliant man.

[nthfinity]

^^^^^
mabey i ought to read 'driving ambition' -1 for aerodynamics (although it had some lift @ 230 mph... id guess some aerodynamic wave augmentation was the root cause of that.

apparently the F1's break even point was right about 100 cars; wheas it was originally about 200 cars.

the veyron was never about marketing success... it was about delivering the near impossible (under warrenty). who knows how successful it will be. it is a technilogical marvel; and the automotive equivilant to going to the moon in the 60's.

the big difference in my mind between the two; is the F1 can be quite a few beasts (no target in particular); where the veyron is the veyron... change is non-existant.

as i've said, the car was well designed in many ways; but where is the progress? you still have the same parts used as they originally? modern tech evolves, and with it, reliability has trounced what it once was a decade ago...

anyway... perhaps one day, my view of the F1 will change... (perhaps by riding/driving one) but there are other cars (that would end up being cheaper) that i would rather have regardless of price. chiefely being a Dauer 962 ;)

[bmagni]

blah blah blah, I don't care what people say, still the F1 sucks, I've never driven one, but as there are the ones who say its the ultimate car, others say its nothing special...
the only reason the F1 is the ultimate supercar is the top speed, people started looking at it, cause of that, and then looking for some other reason they say it drives super excellent, it's a supercar, so it has to do so... still the handling of the regular F1 is crap, they had to add wings to make it better... it has good points, like the 3 seats, but maybe thats about it...
in the end, it sucks, its horrible, its nothing special...

[sameerrao]

^^^

True the progress of time means that todays sports saloons can eclipse a supercar from the 80s in terms of raw speed and braking ability.

But are people throwing away their 250 GTOs, McLaren F1, F40s, etc. just to get the latest technology. I would hazard a guess that very few do so.

As I am growing older, raw statistics like 0-60, 0-200 becomes passe and meaningless. Its the driving experience that matters to me as well as other non-objective aspects like looks, heritage of the make, engine sound ... stuff like that.

If had 1.3MM to spare and I would certainly buy a F1 because it means so much to me. Maybe you would choose the Veyron because it means a lot to you. In the end that's what counts not some discussion into the clutch life of X vs Y car or other nitty-gritties

[bmagni]

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...

[blah]

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.

Also there is one member on this site with an Enzo, and an F50, well its his dads.

[LotusGT1]

^^^^^
mabey i ought to read 'driving ambition' -1 for aerodynamics (although it had some lift @ 230 mph... id guess some aerodynamic wave augmentation was the root cause of that.

apparently the F1's break even point was right about 100 cars; wheas it was originally about 200 cars.

the veyron was never about marketing success... it was about delivering the near impossible (under warrenty). who knows how successful it will be. it is a technilogical marvel; and the automotive equivilant to going to the moon in the 60's.

the big difference in my mind between the two; is the F1 can be quite a few beasts (no target in particular); where the veyron is the veyron... change is non-existant.

as i've said, the car was well designed in many ways; but where is the progress? you still have the same parts used as they originally? modern tech evolves, and with it, reliability has trounced what it once was a decade ago...

anyway... perhaps one day, my view of the F1 will change... (perhaps by riding/driving one) but there are other cars (that would end up being cheaper) that i would rather have regardless of price. chiefely being a Dauer 962 ;)

What a load of bullshit.

Don't start about aerodynamics while you love the Veyron so much. The car had a fucking 2 year delay because the cars aerodynamics sucked at high speeds. Its design was flawed, and it took so much time to correct it without getting away too much from the original design.

The F1 was built for one purpose. To be the ultimate roadcar of its time. And it succeeded in that. It was purposely built to be the best supercar in every aspect. And at the time it was. Central driving position like the mono-post sportscars, goldplated engine covers for best cooling, pretty luxurious yet very light, and built from the best materials you could imagine. Why do you think the F1 has so much legacy already? Don't start crap about luggage space or break even points. Commercialy it wasn't Murray's best set up plan perhaps, but it definately was THE supercar.

LOL@VW trying to "achieve the impossible" with the Veyron. Unlike specialists with a passion, conglomerates like VW tend to built cars for one or two reasons. Either it needs to make money, or it needs to add value to the reputation - marketing etc.

The Veyron is from a technical point not that advanced. It has a W16 engine (two 8 cylinders litteraly slapped together), they put four turbo's on it, gave it AWD because the car is fat as a pig, and you call it a technological marvel? Both the Enzo and the CGT are from a technical standpoint more impressive.

In conclusion, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

EDIT - One of the few guys that complained about its handling was Clarkson btw, Tiff loved it however and named it the best supercar EVER. Guess who is the most credible when it comes to driving?

[blinkmeat]

:roll:

[LotusGT1]

What?

[nthfinity]

^^^^^
mabey i ought to read 'driving ambition' -1 for aerodynamics (although it had some lift @ 230 mph... id guess some aerodynamic wave augmentation was the root cause of that.

apparently the F1's break even point was right about 100 cars; wheas it was originally about 200 cars.

the veyron was never about marketing success... it was about delivering the near impossible (under warrenty). who knows how successful it will be. it is a technilogical marvel; and the automotive equivilant to going to the moon in the 60's.

the big difference in my mind between the two; is the F1 can be quite a few beasts (no target in particular); where the veyron is the veyron... change is non-existant.

as i've said, the car was well designed in many ways; but where is the progress? you still have the same parts used as they originally? modern tech evolves, and with it, reliability has trounced what it once was a decade ago...

anyway... perhaps one day, my view of the F1 will change... (perhaps by riding/driving one) but there are other cars (that would end up being cheaper) that i would rather have regardless of price. chiefely being a Dauer 962 ;)

What a load of bullshit.

Don't start about aerodynamics while you love the Veyron so much. The car had a fucking 2 year delay because the cars aerodynamics sucked at high speeds. Its design was flawed, and it took so much time to correct it without getting away too much from the original design.

The F1 was built for one purpose. To be the ultimate roadcar of its time. And it succeeded in that. It was purposely built to be the best supercar in every aspect. And at the time it was. Central driving position like the mono-post sportscars, goldplated engine covers for best cooling, pretty luxurious yet very light, and built from the best materials you could imagine. Why do you think the F1 has so much legacy already? Don't start crap about luggage space or break even points. Commercialy it wasn't Murray's best set up plan perhaps, but it definately was THE supercar.

LOL@VW trying to "achieve the impossible" with the Veyron. Unlike specialists with a passion, conglomerates like VW tend to built cars for one or two reasons. Either it needs to make money, or it needs to add value to the reputation - marketing etc.

The Veyron is from a technical point not that advanced. It has a W16 engine (two 8 cylinders litteraly slapped together), they put four turbo's on it, gave it AWD because the car is fat as a pig, and you call it a technological marvel? Both the Enzo and the CGT are from a technical standpoint more impressive.

In conclusion, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

EDIT - One of the few guys that complained about its handling was Clarkson btw, Tiff loved it however and named it the best supercar EVER. Guess who is the most credible when it comes to driving?
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)

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...)

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) ?

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...

[blah]

the callaway sledgehammer hit 254 didnt it?

[sentra_dude]

the callaway sledgehammer hit 254 didnt it?

Back in 1988 or something right?

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)

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...)

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) ?

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...



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) ?

107 were built, 64 for street use and 43 for racing.

All things considered, if you look at the current prices for the F1, which are around the original price, or a bit higher, I'd say in a better economic climate more than just a 100 or so could have been sold. There is obviously demand for the car now, if people are willing to pay $1mil, or $1.2mil. Maybe they wouldn't have sold 300, but I'm sure more than just 64 roadcars.

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...

Tiff said he preferred the 911 GT1, that doesn't mean he suddenly thought the F1 sucked. By the way, what car was featured in the 5th Gear feature, World's Greatest Cars, several years after that GT1 vid by Tiff? Hmm...maybe the F360, the F40, and, surprisingly enough the McLaren F1. Yep, it must suck to Tiff if he featured it on that program. Its as much or as little a myth as every other low volume supercar...

Really, just pick up and flip through a copy of Driving Ambition, you might see what we are talking about.

[bmagni]

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]

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]

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.


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...


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.


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.


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]

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]

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]

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 :P 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/topic.asp?t=116008&f=23&h=0&hw=flemke

http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=116303&f=23&h=0&hw=flemke

http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?t=116539&f=23&h=0&hw=flemke

[sentra_dude]

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...:P

[sameerrao]

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. :D

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. :lol: :P

[nthfinity]

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:

:P 8)

truly, a well educated answer :wink:

[LotusGT1]

LOL...indeed.

[saadie]

nthfinity, congrats on showing the world quite possibly the worst and most retarded McLaren F1 discussion ever.
lmfao :lol::lol::lol:

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:

ok ... heres the difference in the practical world

a dancer can do this without even knowing its hapenning ( thus giving you nice momments without even when she is not in her top mood )
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8936/a0000053te.th.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=a0000053te.jpg)
when compared to a girl with big boobs .... the big boobed girl can do nothing but seduce people ... not to mention that only the stupid people fall for it :P :wink:
http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/3963/jobcandidate9hy.th.jpg (http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jobcandidate9hy.jpg)

if this girl tries to do what the dancer dose ... she will just topple over because of the weight transferrs caused by her boobs ... just in the same way as the mclaren can handle better then the veyron :) :lol::prr:

oookay ..... just dont embarace me by posting naked pictures :lol:

[nthfinity]

nthfinity, congrats on showing the world quite possibly the worst and most retarded McLaren F1 discussion ever.

LOL...indeed.

glad you two enjoyed yourselves as much as i have :P :D

[LotusGT1]

Nice post here...from the owner of an F1, and a former Enzo owner...

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97397&page=5

Quoted is jenmara

As the owner of at least one McLaren F1 and the past owner of an Enzo I can tell you from personal experience that there is no comparison between the two cars.

The Enzo is crude, noisy, uncomfortable and an absolute horror to drive for any length of time. While the car does perform on the track I doubt there are many out there who would ever get the opportunity to use it in that fashion. I signed an agreement with Ferrari not to sell the car for one year, and I counted down all 365 days till I could say goodbye.

The F1 on the other hand is an absolute joy to drive. Every time I go for a drive I wish it was not over. It is a pleasure in every sense of the word.

I have had an opportunity to drive the Bugatti and it is a wonderful automobile. The performance, particularly the transmission, is spectacular. The only comment I would make between the Bugatti and the F1 is that the Bugatti weighs about twice as much, and you feel it. One of the beauties of the F1 is how light it is. With no power steering or other assists, you really never feel the need.

The modern car which comes closest to the F1 in driving pleasure is the Porsche Carrera Gt. It could use a system like the Enzo to raise the front.

In summary there is nothing that comes close to the F1, and I think the Bugatti proves that with the current laws, nothing ever will again.

[McLaren4eVa]

Nice post here...from the owner of an F1, and a former Enzo owner...

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97397&page=5

As the owner of at least one McLaren F1 and the past owner of an Enzo I can tell you from personal experience that there is no comparison between the two cars.

The Enzo is crude, noisy, uncomfortable and an absolute horror to drive for any length of time. While the car does perform on the track I doubt there are many out there who would ever get the opportunity to use it in that fashion. I signed an agreement with Ferrari not to sell the car for one year, and I counted down all 365 days till I could say goodbye.

The F1 on the other hand is an absolute joy to drive. Every time I go for a drive I wish it was not over. It is a pleasure in every sense of the word.

I have had an opportunity to drive the Bugatti and it is a wonderful automobile. The performance, particularly the transmission, is spectacular. The only comment I would make between the Bugatti and the F1 is that the Bugatti weighs about twice as much, and you feel it. One of the beauties of the F1 is how light it is. With no power steering or other assists, you really never feel the need.

The modern car which comes closest to the F1 in driving pleasure is the Porsche Carrera Gt. It could use a system like the Enzo to raise the front.

In summary there is nothing that comes close to the F1, and I think the Bugatti proves that with the current laws, nothing ever will again.

Jeez thats one lucky guy and once again proving the point that the F1 is still the best car in the world

[Pokiou]

1. i didn't mean to

2. i think it is quite comical

3. the F1 does suck, and people still think its the best thing since Soap

4. people need to realize #3 is correct, and it isnt the best thing since soap

i think your mother is the best thing since soap. :P

[Shinigami]

You know what sucks that none of us will ever get a chance to own either an F1, Veyron or Ferrari Enzo LOL!
never say never ;)

I like all three :lol:

[saadie]

^^ lol ....think of getting something better ... (hint LP640) :P

[nthfinity]

i didn't bring this back up...

but last weekend i had a long chat with a fellow petrol head... one who has driven most hypercars of the previous decade; and his add-to-garage list does have the McLaren F1 on it... but here is what he has to say about it

the car doesn't behave predictably, its not fun to drive, it's power and accelleration is amazing and impressive. for a car tipping the scales so little, he is suprised how poorly the car handles; and when on the edge, it has a tendancy to spin even easier then other mid-engine hypercars... all without much warning... .you really have to be a race driver to drive it.

he knows quite a few F1 owners; and tells me that they dont drive the car... they dont like it quite so much as others in thier collection. the people who rave about the F1 as the greatest car in the world may have been passenger; or even driven a bit... but a majority of the owners aren't nearly as enthusiastic.

this is coming from an equally highly reputable source as the F1 = greatest ever crowed at fchat... actually, i would argue more reputable; as he created hypercars some time back; and is still making, and designing future cars.

other cars he wants more then the F1...

Bugatti EB110, and the Jaguar XJ220... then the F1; just to complete his 90's hypercar garage.

[sameerrao]

So it is car that expects the driver to know what (s)he is doing. Is this wrong? Maybe to the "Grey Poupon" crowd that lathers over the Veyron which does it all for you except for making a cappucino at 150 mph while you are in a cocoon of silence. :lol:

FYI, there were lot of drivers who slammed a F40 into the fence or the hedges when trying to muscle the car without treating it with the proper respect. In fact a few months back, a new owner in Fchat from California damaged the rear of his car when he tried to goose it when the tires were cold. So anyone hates the F40 now?

The F1 like the F40 are not perfect by any means. They have flaws in it and they demand competence and respect behind the wheel. Both these cars have tons of charisma that a Mercedes SLR or Veyron can only dream about.

Its obvious that you do not get this and keep this stupid thread alive by your inane postings.

[nthfinity]

Its obvious that you do not get this and keep this stupid thread alive by your inane postings.

im just passing along comments from an expert :wink: an expert who does want the F1.

if an expert is inane; then mabey its not my post that is inane ;)

@ crashing an F40 with cold tires... what does that have to do with comparing to a poorly handling car (in terms of balance) that tips the scalse less, or similar to an F40. the F40 is a different car altogether; while the F40 is a race car for the road; even with a less agressive setup, the F1 could still have had good balance... which i am told; it doesn't have.

again; i didn't bring this back up... but my post is far from inane; and the experts' opinion is far more valid then my own.

[DeMoN]

Bugatti EB110, and the Jaguar XJ220... then the F1; just to complete his 90's hypercar garage.

I wouldnt call THAT an expert. I have seen documentaries saying both those cars he listed to be "before" the F1 were bad. XJ220 certainly was. That car has MANY flaws.

[nthfinity]

thanks everso ;) 8) Bugatti EB110, and the Jaguar XJ220... then the F1; just to complete his 90's hypercar garage.

I wouldnt call THAT an expert. I have seen documentaries saying both those cars he listed to be "before" the F1 were bad. XJ220 certainly was. That car has MANY flaws.
this guy has driven them all; and builds them...
if i were to guess why he prefers the Jag over the F1... chances are because it looks better ;)

and he has nothing but praise for the EB110; and rightly so. do you take your documentaries as the absolute god-honest-truth? or have you actually spoken with somebody who has driven them at length?

before last weekend, i had only seen the documentaries myself 8)

[sameerrao]

Well owner-drivers of F1 like Rowan Atkinson, Jay Leno and "Flemke" seem to like their cars very much and havent seemed that jumpy to trade it in.


long live the king.

King Indeed :)
http://www.npr.org/business/images/graphics/burgerking_200.jpg

I think the Zonda F and Carrera GT are much better successor to the F1 than the bloated pig Veyron

[sameerrao]

^^ :lol: :wink:

[nthfinity]

Well owner-drivers of F1 like Rowan Atkinson, Jay Leno and "Flemke" seem to like their cars very much and havent seemed that jumpy to trade it in.


long live the king.

King Indeed :)
http://www.npr.org/business/images/graphics/burgerking_200.jpg

I think the Zonda F and Carrera GT are much better successor to the F1 than the bloated pig Veyron

i never said anything about trading in the cars; besides... most people who buy them are already collectors.
how often do SoCal people see Jay in his F1? does he kick it sideways like he does with his CGT on e-way on-ramps? [answers i dont know]

the successor to the F1? being that the F1 wasn't the greatest car ever made; i dont think that is the right term :wink: i'm leaning towared another car right now that has been cast into 'seriously uncool' on our cool wall... in due time; i'll follow up on why :)

but; if i were to say anything about anything being a successor to the F1; it would be Bugatti; strictly in terms of using new meathods and materials... althought he CGT is there as well with something like 70 applications for pattents for the car (no idea how many went through)

[nthfinity]

a bit of a pointless bump

but in a recent GT magazine article, i read how legendary racing champion, Derek Bell spun Tony Mason's red F1 GTR 360 degrees( the so called superior racing machine) on the straight in front of the pit wall; and apparently, Derek was very suprised that this even happened.

So I guess it isn't limited to the early road cars then?

[novass]

how often do SoCal people see Jay in his F1? does he kick it sideways like he does with his CGT on e-way on-ramps? [answers i dont know]


I see Leno all the time because he does a weekly comedy show down in Hermosa where I grew up, still very near too and im often down there. I believe he lives down there too or at least did at one point. I have never seen him in the F1, usually some kind of classic car. I havent seen his CGT either though.

[gobs3z]

how often do SoCal people see Jay in his F1? does he kick it sideways like he does with his CGT on e-way on-ramps? [answers i dont know]


I see Leno all the time because he does a weekly comedy show down in Hermosa where I grew up, still very near too and im often down there. I believe he lives down there too or at least did at one point. I have never seen him in the F1, usually some kind of classic car. I havent seen his CGT either though.

I'm not sure he still owns a Carrera GT. He was on a show called "payback" where he had a custom built C6 Vette convertible made for the owner of that comdey club your talking about. During the show he mentioned that his friend has touched a curb with his CGT and it was $130k in damages and how European cars aren't built tough like American cars. So i dunno what his take is on Euro cars anymore.

[novass]

how often do SoCal people see Jay in his F1? does he kick it sideways like he does with his CGT on e-way on-ramps? [answers i dont know]


I see Leno all the time because he does a weekly comedy show down in Hermosa where I grew up, still very near too and im often down there. I believe he lives down there too or at least did at one point. I have never seen him in the F1, usually some kind of classic car. I havent seen his CGT either though.

I'm not sure he still owns a Carrera GT. He was on a show called "payback" where he had a custom built C6 Vette convertible made for the owner of that comdey club your talking about. During the show he mentioned that his friend has touched a curb with his CGT and it was $130k in damages and how European cars aren't built tough like American cars. So i dunno what his take is on Euro cars anymore.

Ya I show that show a while ago and yes that was the club. It is about a block away from my friends parents house, so growing up, we would always walk past it to go to the beach and often see him and his cars there. I dont recall the part about the GT in the show though, it was a while ago though, so I could have forgotten.

[gucom]

the Veyron has made everybody forget the awful F1.

this topic should be edited as "Verdict is FINAL" and closed. :mrgreen:

or maybe we would be best off just concluding that different cars are the best for different people with different preferences? for me personally the Veyron is a pile of junk compared to the F1, which is not to say its anything near a pile of junk in absolute terms ofcourse, but i'd much rather have a McLaren F1, Ferrari F50 of Porsche CGT instead of the veyron...

[ae86_16v]

I would hope Mclaren would join with BMW to make another great car like the old F1, maybe and F1 version 2 that would womp the Bugatti but for now the Bugatti really ownz everyone :(

Can't happen anytime soon, McLaren and MB are joined at the hips. Both with their production car programs and Formula 1.

Remember that the Bugatti really is a pointless engineering exercise, it is just to show that they could do it. Where as at least the McLaren F1 was a racing car.

[graywolf624]

RIGHT NOW we have a supercar being made which may never be eclipsed. Just appreciate what's been made....it's a work of true art in every respect.

It'll happen again.. It always does.. Just give it time.

Hell.. if history keeps on the way it is we will be driving 500 hp cars in a few years. Who is to say that the latest overweight mercedes won't have 1000 hp... Hell.. wouldnt that be the definition of the bugatti..overweight high hp car.. ;)

Hmmm..

[gucom]

RIGHT NOW we have a supercar being made which may never be eclipsed. lol u must be kidding, technological advancements will mean there'll always be faster cars, that is untill we fuck up the world badly enough to throw us back to the stone age :)


What Bugatti have done is fired up love and hate in a way that no other car has ever done...at least in our lifetime... lol our own Jabba called the McLaren F1 evil :lol: i've never seen any1 call the veyron that...

McLaren is a track car maker.....especially now, since they made the rubbish F1 tbh thats kind of a pathetic comment, like it or not the F1 was so incredibly far from being rubbish its insane...

[BADMIHAI]

I'm sorry, but the F1 does not suck. For over 10 years it was the superlative supercar. In my book it is still the most desirable car in the world. Watch this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ILJAfiALQf0 and wait for Tiff to day "What the owners of this McLaren F1 will want to do and what you've all been waiting for me to do is give it some stick! WOOOOO" Followed by the most awesome sound I have ever heard in my life. Every single time I watch that video and it gets to that part my hair stands up on my arms. I shit you not. It is the best sounding engine I have ever heard in my life. I would pay $1000000 just to have that sound. The F1 is also a purer car than the Veyron. I love it to death and respect it for what it is: an engineering masterpiece.

[nthfinity]

^^^^^^^
did you bother reading this topic, or the other locked thread?

fanboys annoy the heck out of me; no car is perfect... except perhaps the Carrera GT :shock:

do a search for "mclaren's do handle badly"

Obviously, you've never been in a CGT, or bore witness to the Enzo screaming by... and obviously, I haven't yet seen a F1 in person to compare those two to this terribly engineered car (why does it handle so badly?.... even Darek Bell.... a racing champion spun the F1 GTR (read- race car) unexpectedly. that isn't what I'd pay $1,000,000 for.

Even in the Dan Kenedy video; the guy can't control the car. Sure, he's having fun... but the handling prowess simply supercedes all drivers ability, as on the limit handling just doesnt lose grip gradually and predictibly. Even the owner on pistonheads will say that the suspension geometries aren't well executed.... but further suggested that you can fix it.... which, i'm sure you can... but i'm not so sure that McLaren can... i mean, Derek Bell just spun a few months ago... What does that tell you... a guy who's got 40 years behind the fastest race cars in teh world; test time behind the wheel of the fastest production cars in the world; and he can't feel the McLaren.

Everso is right, they simply cannot make a road car... even the SLR is not as good as many have said: journo's will say it's brakes lack feel... but they are missing the biggest part that the owners know... the steering has no feel, and will pull you in any slight undulation, or divit.... it is a 2 hands at all times car; and not something you have pleasure driving around.

thier (former McLaren engineers) new car I can't complain too much about, as it is a focused track car, even if somehow street legal in some places... not it's big brothers joke of a street car (s)

[BADMIHAI]

^^^^^^^
did you bother reading this topic, or the other locked thread?

fanboys annoy the heck out of me; no car is perfect... except perhaps the Carrera GT :shock:

do a search for "mclaren's do handle badly"

Obviously, you've never been in a CGT, or bore witness to the Enzo screaming by... and obviously, I haven't yet seen a F1 in person to compare those two to this terribly engineered car (why does it handle so badly?.... even Darek Bell.... a racing champion spun the F1 GTR (read- race car) unexpectedly. that isn't what I'd pay $1,000,000 for.


WTF? Is today Oxymoron Day for you, or are you just so stupid you don't even realise what you just wrote? You're saying fanboys annoy the heck out of you yet right after that admit being a fanboy yourself. How can you live with yourself? Do you punch yourself in the teeth every morning?
So you're saying you haven't been in this car, or interacted with it in any sort of way yet at the same time you dare compare it with others you have experienced. Why you're making assumptions about where I've been and what I've done I don't know. Just because you were overwhelmed by the sound of a Carrera GT or Enzo at full bore yet have not experienced a McLaren F1 in similar conditions doesn't make it a failure or a piece of shit. Handling? How many times did Clarkson spin the CGT? How many times did the Stig spin the CGT? Just about any car that's mid engined will be a tricky handler.

[nthfinity]

WTF? Is today Oxymoron Day for you, or are you just so stupid you don't even realise what you just wrote? You're saying fanboys annoy the heck out of you yet right after that admit being a fanboy yourself. How can you live with yourself? Do you punch yourself in the teeth every morning?
So you're saying you haven't been in this car, or interacted with it in any sort of way yet at the same time you dare compare it with others you have experienced. Why you're making assumptions about where I've been and what I've done I don't know. Just because you were overwhelmed by the sound of a Carrera GT or Enzo at full bore yet have not experienced a McLaren F1 in similar conditions doesn't make it a failure or a piece of shit. Handling? How many times did Clarkson spin the CGT? How many times did the Stig spin the CGT? Just about any car that's mid engined will be a tricky handler.


no oxymoron here

CGT communicates exactly what it is doing
I don't recall the STig spinning the CGT one bit
WR spin the CGT? nope

was i overwhelmed by the CGT... after being in one, it was a similar feeling as the VEctor, in a totally different way. I have yet to find a problem with the CGT in terms of anything. the clutch isn't an issue... in fact, its no different feel then your average car... its the speed at which the engine racts... and that isn't a problem either :)

I'm sure the CGT has it's flaws... but in my time in one, I haven't yet found one :shock:

the Macca F1 spins out of control w/out communicating to the driver. The steering is numb, the seat of your pants doesnt exist. Just talk to people who have driven them.... unlike you, I know people who have driven them, and were unimpressed.

[BADMIHAI]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3L-fzT2qpE
Top Gear

Clarkson on the CGT

"As a result, it's much lighter than the Macca (SLR). And that makes it nimbler and edgier and that makes it more of a handfull. Wowwowwow! You need to be awake to drive this fast. It really isn't an easy car to control." (...) and the handling...you really are on a knife edge."

READ THIS, MOFO:

"You know the Stig, right? Mighty car control. He got into that Porsche [CGT] "Right, here we go." And we've actually got a tape, which I think we can show you, of his first attempt. (...) Here he comes into the Hammerhead, very close to the tyres and (spins that pig of CGT) honestly, it's a PIG. The Mercedes [SLR] forgives you. That: make a mistake and AGUH! it bites your head off. It's that simple."

"He [the Stig] had another go after that, spun it again and again and again(...)"

Clarkson might not be the best driver out there, but if even the Stig struggled with that motherfucker, we can pretty much conclude the CGT is a pig to handle. Could it be the mid-engined layout? I definitely think so.

[nthfinity]

ah

yes, now i remember.

still
when you have time with either of those cars, know people who drive them... then you'll get a very different view.

Does clarkson not praise how rewarding the CGT really is?

the thing is, the Macca is unpredictable in a wholey different way.

I find it entertaining that so many use Clarkson as an absolute authority; let alone, any article. Find an owner; then come back. I say this particularly because the owners I know have said that the journo's have gotten so much so very wrong

[BADMIHAI]

Yeah, I'm sure the Stig is really a shit driver that couldn't handle a VW Beetle. :roll: I think we're getting back to the point that Americans don't understand the concept of handling. All you seem to understand is grip, accelleration and braking. I really doubt those owners drove their cars like the Stig drove the CGT.

[nthfinity]

Yeah, I'm sure the Stig is really a shit driver that couldn't handle a VW Beetle. :roll: I think we're getting back to the point that Americans don't understand the concept of handling. All you seem to understand is grip, accelleration and braking. I really doubt those owners drove their cars like the Stig drove the CGT.

you once again prove you know nothing. I bet you've never driven a sports car before. let alone, I wouldn't be surprised if you never even have been in the passenger seat.

[666fast]

I think we're getting back to the point that Americans don't understand the concept of handling.

And the truth comes out, Nth doesn't know what he's talking about because he's an American. :roll:

Ignoring that, are you able to argue about anything without hurling insults at people?

[BADMIHAI]

Yeah, I'm sure the Stig is really a shit driver that couldn't handle a VW Beetle. :roll: I think we're getting back to the point that Americans don't understand the concept of handling. All you seem to understand is grip, accelleration and braking. I really doubt those owners drove their cars like the Stig drove the CGT.

you once again prove you know nothing. I bet you've never driven a sports car before. let alone, I wouldn't be surprised if you never even have been in the passenger seat.


Yet again you come in with the assumptions.
Enlighten me, of mighty one. How is the Carrera GT a great handling car?

[nthfinity]

Yeah, I'm sure the Stig is really a shit driver that couldn't handle a VW Beetle. :roll: I think we're getting back to the point that Americans don't understand the concept of handling. All you seem to understand is grip, accelleration and braking. I really doubt those owners drove their cars like the Stig drove the CGT.

you once again prove you know nothing. I bet you've never driven a sports car before. let alone, I wouldn't be surprised if you never even have been in the passenger seat.


Yet again you come in with the assumptions.
Enlighten me, of mighty one. How is the Carrera GT a great handling car?
7:30 NS

nuf' said

[BADMIHAI]

Thanks for proving my point about not understanding handling. Just because it can lap a circuit fast doesn't mean it's a great handling car. Another good example is the Koeniggsegg.

[nthfinity]

Thanks for proving my point about not understanding handling. Just because it can lap a circuit fast doesn't mean it's a great handling car. Another good example is the Koeniggsegg.

LOLOLOL

you are an idiot

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ok, name a good handling car that doesn't lap a track in a good time

LOLOLOL

[BADMIHAI]

Mazda Miata, Peugeot 106, Triumph TR, Ferrari 250 GTO, Ferrari 275 GTB, etc. You seem to be the idiot because you just can't comprehend the concept of handling. Unfortunately, it goes beyond track lap times. It's about the car's controlability when grip is lost.

[McLaren4eVa]

Who would be as stupid to compare a car from 1993 to a car from 2004. The F1 has less grip because the technology was not as advanced as it is now, the CGT has an active spoiler which creates downforce. Thats exactly why you should NOT compare the F1 to a modern day supercar on its handling. The F1 today should not be looked at in a negative way just because it handles, I for one appreciate its performnce, practicality, it's uniqueness. The F1 will never be surpassed in terms of the Ultimate SuperCAR(and note car) because it does everything a car does SUPERBLY!

[nthfinity]

Mazda Miata, Peugeot 106, Triumph TR, Ferrari 250 GTO, Ferrari 275 GTB, etc. You seem to be the idiot because you just can't comprehend the concept of handling. Unfortunately, it goes beyond track lap times. It's about the car's controlability when grip is lost.

the miata has great tight track lap times

the Triumph is the same

the Ferrari 250, 275 just cant be compared LOL

I dont know anything about the Peugeot, honestly; but wtih "106" surely its a small hatch with 100hp.

so, again; how about a good handling car that laps a track slowly (within its catagory) you are proving you are stupider by the minute... I mean... this is beyond your internet persona... this is just ... well... stupid LOL

I've driven the NSX FYI, and its a great chassis, and guess what, within its' catagory, it has a great lap time, yet has "little" power, and practically no torque.

[gucom]

lol and some1 dares say the F1 doesn't get as hefty reactions as the veyron, just look at this topic :lol: now here's the real important part: STFU :) indeed fast times dont equal handling, who of us would be able to drive an F1 car? plenty of grip there, but a handling only a pro could - here it comes- handle :) :arrow: handling=the handlability of a car (when driven at/near its limits).
The F1 was so incredibly far ahead of its time, and it was never created to be the fastest or the grippiest car, why do u think it had 17inch wheels? to make it driveable in everyday conditions, as said before in this topic, the F1 was (and, in my opinion still is) the ultimate all-round sportscar, as a complete package i think it still hasn't been surpassed.

[nthfinity]

refer to a previous post where I mention that Darek Bell, the STFU champion racer spun a McLaren F1 GTR, and was surprised.

and yes, a good handling car will get a good lap time within it's segment.... to say otherwise is plain stupid :roll:

[gucom]

and yes, a good handling car will get a good lap time within it's segment.... to say otherwise is plain stupid :roll:
im saying its not the other way round, good lap times dont equal good handling, which is what the discussion was about :wink:

[nthfinity]

and yes, a good handling car will get a good lap time within it's segment.... to say otherwise is plain stupid :roll:
im saying its not the other way round, good lap times dont equal good handling, which is what the discussion was about :wink:

find me a bad lap time for a good handling car

and visa versa

listen to what you are saying... think about it logically.

[gucom]

nth, its not rocket science... controlling some cars at their limits may be shit hard to do, but they can still be fast, how about you think about that logically? im simply not talented enough to drive an F1 car, i'd crash it as soon as i started pushing because of its snappiness etc... are you telling me that's a slow car?

[nthfinity]

nth, its not rocket science... controlling some cars at their limits may be shit hard to do, but they can still be fast, how about you think about that logically? im simply not talented enough to drive an F1 car, i'd crash it as soon as i started pushing because of its snappiness etc... are you telling me that's a slow car?

you are coming in to subjective catagories, I am not.

a racing driver will tell you how a car is.

a car with a higher skidpad number doesn't mean its the better handling car; it is the car with better balance, and still high load limits; even if not the highest in a catagory

nobody said we are talking about noobs who drive around a track in a uber-car

think about it logically mate, you are defending a point of view with no facts.

a good handling car in a specific catagory will always beat a car with poor handling characteristics... i mean, the F40 could lap around a track faster then the F1 could, until the GTR race car came out; then it was BMW's reliability that came to play... and engine prowess.

i dont know how you guys are missing the point

the Macca is the bad handling car, with a bad lap time