The Official: "There's no such thing as a dumb question about the McLaren F1" thread

[murraydeschot]

Originally Posted by andybee

Black Hugo Boss socks - he would have been in McLaren travel gear

Ask a silly question ...

[Le Man]

Originally Posted by murraydeschot

Wrong!

Now for the real answer.........


http://www.patrickjames.co.uk/blog/2...b101-speakers/

[murraydeschot]

Originally Posted by Le Man

Now for the real answer.........


http://www.patrickjames.co.uk/blog/2...b101-speakers/

Indeed! The Rogers db101's.

[Le Man]

Originally Posted by murraydeschot

Indeed! The Rogers db101's.

Here you go Murray, ...........this add, makes the connection complete.



What,s my prize

[murraydeschot]

Originally Posted by Le Man

Here you go Murray, ...........this add, makes the connection complete.



What,s my prize

Prize? What prize? Oh, speak to Erik, he's the mod here!

Something reminds me of having seen that advert before, back in the day.

Thanks!

[Peloton25]

I have the top half photo - always confused me.

As for prizes Le Man, you can go buy your own trophy and have them write whatever you want on it.

>8^)
ER

[hurstg01]

Originally Posted by Peloton25

I have the top half photo >8^)
ER

Me too!

[Le Man]

Originally Posted by Peloton25

I have the top half photo - always confused me.

As for prizes Le Man, you can go buy your own trophy and have them write whatever you want on it.

>8^)
ER

They say two halves make a whole


Trophy!! what, like this one

[Sami Aaltonen]

Here is an other "more or less" easy question.
First place; I just want to clear this out for me, have I understood it right.

Racecar Engineerin 1996 vol 6 No1:
Gordon Murray explains the Engine side:
"I know people don't believe us, but the engine that won at Le Mans was internally an untouched road car engine. Nothing was changed on it.
It was re-mapped, but that was it...".

So, the engine was untouched, but the re-mapped word gets me interested. What he precisely means about this word?

-> The engine was race tunned, more power and torque,
setuped for the racing? Like LM engine has compared to basic F1?
->The engine's computerbox, electronics was changed more race format?

Did I understood this right?

And what comes that Racecar Engineering article of 1996 GTR, it's absolutely suberp story. All the developing work 1995 to 1996 and even 1997 plans and changings have been mentionded. Very very good story! Exactly that information which I have been looking for specially from GTR's!!!!!
Defenitely worth of 8€ what I payed that on EBAY!
If you find this magazine, do not hesitate to buy it!

And Thank you for the answers to my question!

[webslinger283]

by re-mapped i believe that they just reprogramed the ECU to change detination....whether advanced or retarded...the fuel air ratio...the intesnity of the spark....i believe that is all you change by re-mapping it...although i could be wrong...confirmation anyone.

[murraydeschot]

In an interview I watched, McLaren gave less than exemplary back up to the initial GTR competitors ... comment, criticise or back up!

[Sami Aaltonen]

Originally Posted by webslinger283

by re-mapped i believe that they just reprogramed the ECU to change detination....whether advanced or retarded...the fuel air ratio...the intesnity of the spark....i believe that is all you change by re-mapping it...although i could be wrong...confirmation anyone.

Ok, it must be like this way. If Le Man or Doc or Erik could comfirm this, it would be nice!

Anyway; this just tells how uncombromised the F1 road car has been. The story clearly is seen that "I wanted" word is very many times seen, so forgot the money, we do it as good as we just can do it.

[Peloton25]

The GTR engines had to deal with air restrictors, so their entire fuel/air mixture would have needed tweaking just because of that.

= = = = = =

Here's a question - in the recent Octane magazine article, Rowan Atkinson refers to F1s with brake upgrades engineered by their owners. Here's his quote:

"The McLaren brakes are not good. They are probably best described as 'very 1992'. They are Brembo, quite sophisticated things in their day, but they seem poor by modern standards. You can see why some F1 owners have developed their own brake upgrades."

Since he's always the first to come to mind when people mention F1 upgrades - I believe Flemke has talked about doing this in the past, but does anyone who follows the PistonHeads threads more closely than me know if he's gotten anywhere with that? The most recent images I have of his car show very standard looking F1 brakes. I'm not familiar with any other F1s that don't have the standard Brembo package either.

As this is the one weak link that everyone talks about with the F1, I'd be curious to know more about any owner's brake upgrades?

>8^)
ER

[Sami Aaltonen]

Originally Posted by Peloton25

The GTR engines had to deal with air restrictors, so their entire fuel/air mixture would have needed tweaking just because of that.

>8^)
ER

OK, things starts to be clear!

About those brakes; interesting that BREMBO hasn't got any spare parts of desinged to McLaren F1?
They did the brakes on the road car and seems that GTR's had also Brembo's brakes, but I would thought that they would do a "performance kit" to the owners who want's better brakes.....

[Le Man]

Originally Posted by Sami Aaltonen

Here is an other "more or less" easy question.
First place; I just want to clear this out for me, have I understood it right.

Racecar Engineerin 1996 vol 6 No1:
Gordon Murray explains the Engine side:
"I know people don't believe us, but the engine that won at Le Mans was internally an untouched road car engine. Nothing was changed on it.
It was re-mapped, but that was it...".

So, the engine was untouched, but the re-mapped word gets me interested. What he precisely means about this word?

-> The engine was race tunned, more power and torque,
setuped for the racing? Like LM engine has compared to basic F1?
->The engine's computerbox, electronics was changed more race format?

Did I understood this right?

And what comes that Racecar Engineering article of 1996 GTR, it's absolutely suberp story. All the developing work 1995 to 1996 and even 1997 plans and changings have been mentionded. Very very good story! Exactly that information which I have been looking for specially from GTR's!!!!!
Defenitely worth of 8€ what I payed that on EBAY!
If you find this magazine, do not hesitate to buy it!

And Thank you for the answers to my question!

As for the basic architecture of the engine being as a standard road F1 that won LeMans, I would totally believe Gordon on that. What he does not add in the article is the main fundemental changes that had to be made, to make sure the engine ran reliable for 24 hours. I can elaborate further if anybody wishes to know.

On the remapping side of things, a race car engines fuel requirements are totally different to the road car. The road car has to be fuel efficient and emissions friendly, remember it had surpassed the most stringent Californian emissions regulations at the time it was introduced.
The road car fuel injection system runs two injectors per cylinder, ie it runs on a lower fuel requirement in its lower rev/load range, switching to the second injector at higher engine rpm/load thus covering its requirements for emissions, driveabilty fuel economy and over a 100bhp per litre at maximum power.
The GTR spec engine did away with the second injector system, running with its own specified single injectors. This, with the air restrictor requirement plus a free flowing exhaust system and the need to run in the higher rpm/load range. led BMW to work diligently on the engines fuel/ign mapping, the result was an increase in torque, around 527lb/ft @ 4500 compared to the road units 479lb/ft @ 5600. So a more powerfull and driveable engine as a result, but with poor fuel economy compared to the road car engine.

So its "HORSES FOR COURSES"

Sami, when you hear a GTR engine going up through the gears, its the engines torque being produced that makes that wonderfull engine sound