:fuck: F1 rules :fuck:

(and its not that i dont like the veyron.. because i do..)

The claim is complete bullshit. While many F1s do not see many miles, like any other super car, some have built up quite high mileage for a supercar, 20-30,000mi (and at least one with over 40,000mi I believe). Flemke (owner of the blue F1 with door mounted mirrors) even quoted that he drove his car 1,000mi/month for a while, and his car has around 32,000 or 33,000 miles.


And a glorious 3 speed automatic...:lol: Or am I mistaken, is it 4 speeds?

you find me another supercar that will actually switch between pump gas, and racing gas, and have a transmission that can last a "lifetime" as the Vector is built to last the duration of the owners life ;)

oh, and on racing gas, the transmission is dealing with 1200 hp... how many clutches does an F1 eat? ;)

That can be true but it's the same for an Enzo which "eats" clutch (I read that Nick Mason had to changes his Enzo clutch after 1500 miles ) and Lambos are also reported to be hard on them but it depends on the use you make of the car ... I don't see why it would be different for the F1 :wink:
All these arguments don't change my opinion on this car : I love it :P

Well, why didn't you say it that way first...? To me that sounds a lot more like, McLaren likes to keep track of the mileage of the cars, and would like it if you didn't exceed a certain number of miles, especially since the car has several parts limited by mileage, such as drive-shafts and joints, and a fuel tank bladder which must be replaced periodically (5 years or so). I could be wrong, but I really doubt they concretely 'limit' the miles, it sounds to me more like a guideline of some sort. Sorry to be on the 'attack' in my earlier post, but we all have our cars we hold close... ;)

I'm not sure if you are aware, but the F1 uses a carbon clutch, which, if used properly will last much longer than 4,000miles, but if abused, yes it will be done in 4-5,000miles. It’s much the same situation with the CGT, or any other car (as if there are a multitude of them out there :lol:) using a carbon clutch. Nearly 500ft-lb trq with a lightweight clutch and disrespect for that clutch is going to lead to a short life. I don't see how that is 'highly unimpressive'?

In addition, this may just obfuscate matters more, but the 4,000 mile interval often quoted as the 'life' of the F1's clutch is actually when the carbon clutch plates need to be re-shimmed to close the gap which develops from wear. This is obviously an involved procedure and could for practical purposes be as involved as changing a clutch, but it is not actually changing the clutch, as it lasts through several re-shims. To further elaborate, one owner has gone 25,000 miles on one clutch, and yes he drives the car 'sportingly', and feels it will last at least 40,000miles.

^^^^^^^^
so.... with so many modern tech out there, and so many 500 hp+++ 500 ft. lbs. torque cars out there, couldn't mighty Mclaren use a new tech that will last longer? ;)

seriously, the F1 isn't the benchmark so many people claim it to be... the facts just don't support it.

every single thing that it is supposed to do better, I can think of another car that does it better... from the same era no less :P

i also seriously doubt some guy is driving truly "sportingly" if his clutch has lasted 25,000 miles.... even low-pow econoboxes driven sportingly wont have clutches that last anywhere near that ;)..... let alone a 600 hp V12

Sorry nth but I don't see any Supercar of the same era or even after that weighted only 1130 kg with a 6 liter V12 (or even smaller engines) and some comfort items like heated front screen CD player, Air-cond. ... . The F50 was claimed at 1250 but was closer to 1350 and even the F40 was 1250 kg "heavy" (claimed 1100 kg ). The McLaren is a masterpiece and even you don't like it I think that you must be fair and admit it :wink:
For the roadholding, some great drivers (like Paul Frere) don't find it to be a nightmare :wink:

words from TT owner , he he
im not fan of Macca desing either, but i must say its engineer masterpiece,
so light,fast , definetly sub zero,

McLaren F1 is very very fast car.I like this car but not because of its performance.Because of its design. This car is subzero for me.

Huh? You're reaching a bit Nth... The CGT is 10 years newer or so, and it has the same problem as the F1 in terms of the clutch. If you want to have a very small and low interia clutch, you can't make it as strong as a truck's clutch.

Well, name another car from the early 1990s that has the same amazing throttle response of the F1, while at the same time having a 6L motor. Maybe there are cars out there with 500 trq from 1994 with a clutch that last longer...but its not a carbon clutch, and I can promise you it won't rev the way an F1 does.

Uhh, by sportingly I don't mean drop clutch starts and drag racing, which yes, would cut through any clutch quickly. No offense, but if you are going through an econobox's clutch in under 25,000 miles just because you are driving "sportingly", you don't really know how to drive a manual... ;)

the CGT's clutch is wholey, and completely different

and dropping from 8000 isn't the same as normal first and second gear starts (not launches)

the CGT is altogether another animal....

lets mention what the F1 does... it is the lightest for its time, and it accellerates the best to 60 mph for its time... i'm not so sure about 0-100mph...

its built using some uber exotic materials, and processes.

it isn't the fastest, and it isn't the best handling; or greatest feel in handing. It isn't the only 3 seat hypercar; 3 seat was an option in the Vector well before the F1 came out ;)

It wasn't the most powerful car in its day... i'm unsure about braking... but i would think it would do well concidering its weight.... i seem to recall it having the 0-100-0 record... but how many other early 90's supercars were put through that test in similar conditions, and identical pavement?

heck, if pavement is smooth enough... the SRT-10 manages a 107 ft. braking distance from 60 mph...

was the F1 a good car? definately.

Was it the best, definately not.

why is it uber gay? Because people think its the best, when many owners think otherwise. (granted, they still like the car, and such)

The CGT has a carbon-ceramic clutch vs. the carbon-carbon clutch of the F1. Both, if abused will wear down very quickly.

We started on this because:
I'm saying that the CGT has a similar situation, of a small, low interia clutch, and it is the 'newer tech' of carbon-ceramic, but it still has basically the same properties as the F1's clutch, 10 years later. If you abuse it, it won't last.

CGT's have been known to 'eat' clutches at the hands of abusive drivers as well, does that make it "highly unimpressive" as well?


Speaking of best handling, where does that Vector thing in your sig get its 1.25 lateral G number from? Is that through a high speed corner, or is that on an actual skip-pad? Or was that number achieved using slicks?

3 seat option in the Vector, any pictures? Is that like, a bench seat in the front, a la Crown Vic? ;)

3 seat was indeed an option in the Vector but I've never seen a pic with this configuration (maybe it was never retained).

Considering they sold like 1 or 2 cars, even if it was in the option list, there aren't many chances for somebody to have selected it :D

Seriously uncool. I'm tired of reading Gordon Murray's articles where he writes that the Macca is the best car ever and nothing can touch it. And he talks about the F1 everytime he writes an article.