What would you improve on?

Hi,

Have we delved into this before? If McLaren were to start building the F1 again*, what improvments or changes do you think should be done? Or what do you think would be done?

Forgive me if this has been gone over in the recent past.


* = I KNOW they have said they won't ever build the F1 again, I'm just supposing here.

Good question, I often wonder what today's McLaren would be...

Broadly, I think he would keep the philosophy identical:
An ultimate roadcar oriented towards the pure driving experience, with no driving aids.

These would then translate to the car's general areas:

Looks
About the same...front duct like a Lotus Elise I would think. Maybe a few more "classic" styling elements since we have learnt how angular designs quickly become dated, as do fins and strakes.

Performance (Aerodynamics, Acceleration, Handling, Braking)
Carbon brakes for sure.
Even better weight savings using new components in stereo, lights, seating, etc.
Even better aerodynamics, if possible
Probably a Mercedes powerplant, normally aspirated I would think
Different tyres
Different wheels
Suspension would be quite different, as I have heard that their design has been improved upon

Reliability
Different ECU?
Better climate control?

I am sure it would have a lot more electronics, but most of them would be "behind the scenes" and not manifest themselves in a million buttons and LEDs.

I would also like to see a sunroof or automatically retracting hardtop or at least a photochromatic glass top. And an F1-style paddle shifter. Oh, and after what happened to Chris Dawes' car, a really awesome fire suppression system as well.

In some interview Gordon Murray mentioned that he detests the bonnet latches, so I am sure he would change those as well.

i was thinking about this too recently. i think tvrfreak covered everything tho

.....

i would definately not go for a mercedes powerplant, since that is used on the pagani (concurrent). I won't change the looks, since it looks like a very recent supercar, still, after ten years, which i reckon, is an enormous achievement, i still think it looks innovative and i think that will never change, it is the best designed road car ever.
engine might be more powerful, and a real sequential gearbox.
tyres are an issue, so are the brakes, and maybe for some extra downforce, a bigger diffusor could be made. and i wanne have some LCD display's (fighter aircraft stile) in the cockpit. for navigation. maybe even an engine management system you can modify in the car. so if it starts to rain, less power output. but it's too perfect to change something about it. it is the best for what it is, not for what i could be better. every positive thing has a negative thing. there's no such thing as a win-win situation, and the McLaren proves to be the ultimate compromise.

i would definatley keep the bmw powerplant. a merc powerplant would probably mean an f1 tranny, and the 6 speed is perfect

The philosophy would have to be the same. I think they could make some money by introducing an "Evolution" model. Something to keep them busy until the next Mercedes project. The clear thinking and logic of the original philosophy still appeals to everyone but the car could benefit from newer technology.


I agree and wouldn't change the looks all that much. From some angles I don't like it but overall I think it's distinctive without being overdone. It has its own unique look and to do something different might come close to someone's else's design. But a refresh of the front and rear is in order.
Carbon brakes, yes please!
Lighter car with simpler electronics and maybe more advanced materials in the engine to lighten weight.
Powerplant is a tough call. A wouldn't want another Merc supercharged sedan engine in there. But the conflict with BMW would be hard to get around. Not that AMG couldn't build a motor worthy of McLaren F1. I guess I'm undecided on this one.
It definately needs a selection of wheels. And some stickier tires to give it some better grip than the average ability of it now. Something over .95 at least without being punishing.
Maybe a Club option with better tires, removal of some of the trimmings, a modest aero package and less restrictive exhaust. And possibly adjustable suspension.
F1-paddle shifter (optional)
F1 traction control system with launch assist (standard on street cars, optional on others)
Fire suppression is a good idea too.
An easier way to get in and out. And not just for the driver.

That's what I have come up with based on what you all have posted so far.

The only things I'd do "improve" the car is add a radio so you can listen to traffic reports and not get stuck in a traffic jam, And put Carbon brakes on like it was originally going to have. There is not much more you could do to improve it apart from making it cheaper (I feel a flaming coming on for that last comment)

oh and give Peter Steven's a pencil and a sheet of paper so he could have another go at the rear of the car because thats one part of the car I don't like. Originally posted by drewwtms
Maybe a Club option with better tires, removal of some of the trimmings, a modest aero package and less restrictive exhaust. And possibly adjustable suspension.
Err haven't you just described a converted GTR or LM? :confused:

...I'd want the chassis number to be a big sticker on the roof of every car so that there would be no question as to which one it is. ;) :bigthumb: ;)


Actually, I would have a serious reply, but many of my concerns have already been covered. Carbon brakes and the paddle shift transmission being my idea of the best places to improve on the legend.

>8^)
ER

Nothing.... don't mess with perfection.

As for the powerplant issue, is any non-naturally aspirated engine out fo the question? What about a Turbocharged BMW powerplant with the WRC's anti-lag system? Perhaps even a smaller displacement F1 style V10 with reliability increased and restrictions decreased? The possibilties are endless.

I'd also maybe put the high mirrors back on in addition to what Peleton said, he pretty much covered any cough flaws cough that the mclaren may have had, thos emirrors are too sexy on that car. I think a larger production run would be nice as well as a price increase to further piss off those who don't get the F1.

i love this car except for the interior.

Originally posted by drewwtms
Maybe a Club option with better tires, removal of some of the trimmings, a modest aero package and less restrictive exhaust. And possibly adjustable suspension.

Originally posted by KoenigseggCC
Err haven't you just described a converted GTR or LM? :confused:

A GTR is not road-ready and intended for race-use. I wouldn't want to drive on on the street - even to a car show or something. That would be cool for the track but I would want to drive my car there.

They only made 5 of the LM. Too spendy even by McLaren F1 standards. And worth too much to take on the track for a regular basis. And the LM is too much like a GTR inside.

If I were Ron Dennis or Gordon Murray I would have an option where you could get some of the LM features (suspension, wheels, tires) but still retain some of the road car's niceties like the stereo and proper seating for the passengers and retractable windows. And I would not want the HDF kit on it because I think it's too aggressive-looking and not necessary for the street. I want to see something in between a road car and an LM in looks, features, and character.

I'm done rambling now.


P.S. - no one has flamed you and I don't think anyone of us would. If they made more cars and partnered with Mercedes for some parts the price might come in cheaper.

Originally posted by drewwtms
A GTR is not road-ready and intended for race-use. I wouldn't want to drive it on the street - even to a car show or something. That would be cool for the track but I would want to drive my car there.

If I were Ron Dennis or Gordon Murray I would have an option where you could get some of the LM features (suspension, wheels, tires) but still retain some of the road car's niceties like the stereo and proper seating for the passengers and retractable windows. And I would not want the HDF kit on it because I think it's too aggressive-looking and not necessary for the street. I want to see something in between a road car and an LM in looks, features, and character. Take a look what I posted, I said converted GTR :) I meant like make it into a road legal like Mclaren have done with a few of them, I'm sure if you had a GTR and you asked Mclaren they would converted it to pretty much what you wanted, (the windows, the interior, the stereo and such from the roadcar and the suspension, wheels, tyres and such from the GTR or LM) I mean they did change many GTR's to LM spec (or atleast the LM look) so changing a GTR to mostly roadcar spec wouldn't bother them a great deal I don't think, and yeah, I don't like the HDF kit, it isn't exactly "modest"

Originally posted by drewwtms
P.S. - no one has flamed you and I don't think anyone of us would. If they made more cars and partnered with Mercedes for some parts the price might come in cheaper. Yeah I'm surprised nobody has flamed me over that comment yet :biggrin: but its what *I* would do to improve it, I think if you took a look back over the thread you can see everyone wants something a little different. Maarten said it best when he said "McLaren proves to be the ultimate compromise" :bigthumb:

Originally posted by KoenigseggCC
Take a look what I posted, I said converted GTR,

I know what you meant. The purpose of this thread was/is, what would be changed if McLaren started making the F1 again.

If I had a mil or two to spend on a car I would consider what you were saying. It would be a ton of work to get it roadworthy but I would consider it.

That brings up an interesting point. Have there ever been any 97-spec GTRs converted to road use? There are quite a few LM-copies out there but have there been any Longtail racers made into street cars? Not an LM-copy but rather a GT-copy.

Originally posted by Peloton25
paddle shift transmission being my idea of the best places to improve on the legend.

>8^)
ER

no way would i get paddle shift on a McLaren, it defies the term "the thrill of driving"

I guess F1 cars are boring to drive then?

Paddle shift mechanisms are great ideas, if developed and implemented correctly.

Sorry drewwtms a little confusion on both our parts there, its just what you seem to described already (kind of) exists or at least achievable, no hard feelings :)

Along with the Carbon brake's what about "full contact braking systems" ? I only heard of these the other day so I haven't read a lot about them but they seem interesting, a single circular pad that distributes pressure over the full 360-degree surface of the disc instead of normal pads that apply pressure to only a small part of the disc. apparently almost fade free :)

I heard the saleen S7 uses them, anyone ever heard of them? the website for the company is http://www.newtech-ibs.com/

'Segg :cool:

Well mini_magic, then I guess you'll miss out on the thrill of driving cars like the SL55 which only has a standard automatic, or the Audi RS6 which offers only a tiptronic transmission here in the US. Shame for you... :p

>8^)
ER

Originally posted by Peloton25
Well mini_magic, then I guess you'll miss out on the thrill of driving cars like the SL55

>8^)
ER

my uncle is getting one so i guess i won't :)


btw, its not as if i don't like the f1 system, i just don't think it would be right to put it on the mclaren f1, but then again, they are developing paddle shift for the slr, so who knows?

Wait a minute...!

Do you even have a driver's license yet?? :thefinger

I saw someone driving an SL55 at the limit the other day. I would guess that's a somewhat rare occurrence, but the car looked damn impressive being flogged that way, and it sounded amazing!

>8^)
ER

nope, but my uncle is nice :)

Originally posted by KoenigseggCC
Sorry drewwtms a little confusion on both our parts there, its just what you seem to described already (kind of) exists or at least achievable, no hard feelings :)

Along with the Carbon brake's what about "full contact braking systems" ? I only heard of these the other day so I haven't read a lot about them but they seem interesting, a single circular pad that distributes pressure over the full 360-degree surface of the disc instead of normal pads that apply pressure to only a small part of the disc. apparently almost fade free :)

I heard the saleen S7 uses them, anyone ever heard of them? the website for the company is http://www.newtech-ibs.com/

'Segg :cool:

I've heard of them before, I think I saw them being tested on a Ford Tuarus on some discovery channel program, they don't look all that cool (Since the rototr isn't exposed) but they sound really good.

TVRfreak hit most idea's on the head with his opening post..

other than carbon composite brakes and 2003 F1 transmission technology, the only other additions i could "dream up" would be a revamped onboard network infrastructure, including discrete GPS & 360 degree radar/laser detection options, Telemetry-Tracking & Control adopted from Siemens (Mclaren F1 team), and an NDA customer option to license the ECU software from McLaren, similiar to what Nismo do for their "endorsed" racing clients worldwide.. some of their proprietary management/diagnostic software is very strictly controlled under NDA, on a per team/per computer basis etc.. maybe ron dennis would be ok with this idea? *cough-cough*

McLaren had first approached Honda for an engine for the F1 roadcar. Honda was their Formula 1 racing partner before BMW. I had suggested a Mercedes powerplant because of McLaren's current relationship with Mercedes. We already know about the phenomenal packaging and power and responsiveness of the AMG-tuned units. I don't think it would take away from the car for it to have a Mercedes or Quaife or whatever powerplant. I feel that the performance and dimensional and weight criteria ought to be the only ones. The "fit" and "partnership" concepts always fall into place as soon as a car proves itself.

One other thing I would propose is the incredibly effective active camber system that is currently in development on the Mercedes Carver prototype. 1.4 g's is simply awesome!

:sunglasse

Ive always loved the F1 just like the rest of you. But instead of putting a heavy (and yes aluminum engines are still heavy) piston V12 or V10 in the new F1 why not go with a 4 rotor Mazda Rotory?

The original F1 was a test in light wieght design. Well Rotories are significantly lighter than piston engines. AND with going on 30 years of deveolpment(auto aircraft and marine) they are just as reliable as a piston engine, they just require a little different thinking.

Here is another note. Rotories (even when giving them the double displacement handicap) have been banned from most of auto racing around the world. Le Mans didnt give Mazda a second chance with thier car in 91. I think Autobacs is the only series that allows them still.

A 4 rotor engine producing 600-650 hp and wieghing half of the poiston engine...... the next F1 could top the scales easily at 200-300lbs lighter.

thats a good idea, i don't know much about engines themselves, but doesn't that limit other engine things? i don't really know what, it just seems wrong...

A 4 rotor engine producing 600-650 hp and wieghing half of the poiston engine...... the next F1 could top the scales easily at 200-300lbs lighter.Not that a 6L V12 is efficicient or anything, but rotaries are even less efficient. They often have trouble meeting US emissions requirements. It's difficult enough to get some later McLarens into the country due to emissions in the first place, and they use four stroke V12s.

Originally posted by amanichen
Not that a 6L V12 is efficicient or anything, but rotaries are even less efficient. They often have trouble meeting US emissions requirements. It's difficult enough to get some later McLarens into the country due to emissions in the first place, and they use four stroke V12s.

Im not saying the rotory wouldn't need some tweaking to pass emisions but at 100-250 copies world wide I'm sure that emissions could be over come easily enough. The performance gains could warrant the emmisions nightmares then agian I'm thinking emmisions are becomeing out rageous expecially when you concider the average car on the street in LA takes in dirtier air than it emmits. THen again thats just my take. And rotories against some belief is a 4 stroke engine. They just like to run slobbery rich.

Just think rotories have only really had about 30 years deveolpment while piston engines have had well over 100.

[quyote]Im not saying the rotory wouldn't need some tweaking to pass emisions but at 100-250 copies world wide I'm sure that emissions could be over come easily enough. [/quote]What does production run have to do with emissions requirements?

The performance gains could warrant the emmisions nightmares then agian I'm thinking emmisions are becomeing out rageousMany McLarens can't be imported into the US on an indefinite basis because of this very reason: and they have a V12! My point is that it will be even harder to get a "rotary powered Mclaren" into the US.

Just think rotories have only really had about 30 years deveolpment while piston engines have had well over 100.Yes, but the inherent design characteristics will probably never make it more fuel efficient than a traditional 4 stroke engine. It's like comparing a 2 stroke engine to a 4 stroke engine: a 2 stroke engine will never be more efficient than a 4 stroke engine due to its basic design.

And yes, rotaries are technically 4 stroke engines, but the term "four stroke engine" usually refers to piston based designs, and not rotary designs.

some really clever ideas are being discussed in this thread... in relation to the OLD emissions arguement -- this post from Kfoote in the "ALL McLaren F1s eligible for Show & Display" thread, has always stuck in my mind...

Originally posted by kfoote
Ah, the Fuel argument...

The fuel burned by a single F16 in 1/2 an hour is more than most street cars burn in their lifetimes. There are other ways to cut the overall total emissions that are far more effective than banning a select few cars from a country.

Any time the racing fuel argument is brought up, I like to bring up CART and IRL, where Methanol is the fuel used. The exhaust is almost entirely water vapor, and though more is burned, the emissions are much cleaner than an average street car.

here-here Kfoote, you are right on!!

Comparing the fuel of a turbine jet fighter is differnt thatn a gasoline engine. Turbines run over 99% clean pisotn engines are in the 70-80% range (if I remember correctly).

Rotories can be classified as Ultra Low Emission Vehicles.... look at the a RX8 it passed with flying colors. So emissions wouldnt be as big of a deal as you think.

The RX-8, last time I checked had 247/208Hp. Increase that to 625Hp and then we can do a comparison.

Interesting idea. The specific power output of the rotary engine is really something. Over 161 hp per litre and over 164 lb-ft per litre. I think it would be a great alternative.

I have also read that soon turbos will run on "air-bearings" and will have zero lag. At that point, it would be silly not to have a turbocharged engine.

All this, lighter weight (I would aim for 900kgs), active camber, and switchable launch and traction control...

Originally posted by amanichen
The RX-8, last time I checked had 247/208Hp. Increase that to 625Hp and then we can do a comparison.

The RX8 is also a 2 rotor engine. I suggested a 4 rotor that was turbocharged.

The natrually aspirated 4 rotor that ran at Le Mans in 91 was called a 26b (opposed to the 13b in the RX8) and had 650+hp with out turbo charging. With turbo charging 750-900 HP would be very easy and half the weight of the V12. But a non-turbo 650hp with all the ULEV equipment in place would probably still make it emissions friendly if not LEV compliant.

Originally posted by Entreri33
Comparing the fuel of a turbine jet fighter is differnt thatn a gasoline engine. Turbines run over 99% clean pisotn engines are in the 70-80% range (if I remember correctly).


you DID'NT read me comparing?? just reposted this earlier as an illustrative to how silly the whole emissions arguement is by government bodies -- for "performance cars" -- when their badly tuned Diesel bus, or a jet fighter, damages the environment more in terms of %/litre consumed..

The big boys (BMW, Merc, Ford, GM, Honda, Vw, Audi, Toyota, Mazda et.al) all produce incredibly efficient powerplants, that do little damage compared to the above examples..

On the subject of Rotaries, I love the idea as a previous owner of both an RX3 and RX7.. Have built my own turbo's with colleagues and agree that NA engines will "possibly" disappear when "air-bearing" technology becomes mainstream/affordable.

For the uninitiated;
NA means naturally aspirated

....and some good introductory articles for you.
http://www.autospeed.com.sg/cms/A_1241/article.html
http://www.autospeed.co.nz/cms/article.html?&A=1250

umm... The BMW S70 Engine for the Mclaren F1 is better than the AMG Pagani Zonda's... The Zonda's Engine rattles at 2000 rpm, where the BMW rattles at 1500 rpm, Zonda has a better starting off torque, but BMW's torque is more like a turbo motor with max torque at 649nm of torque from 3500 ~ 5800rpm, and it red lines at 7500rpm, without the rev limiter goes 7800rpm, where the AMG only has 7000rpm, and peak power for the S70 is 625hp, where AMG is only 555hp.

and as for a rotory engine, they ware out quite easily, if the mclaren has a 4 rotor rotory, the owners would need twice as more service as they already do now. but i guess they can afford it any way.

The new Mac needs:

1. BRAKE BOOSTER! Yes, if Murray's goal was to make the ultimate road/GT car (not a racecar like an Enzo) why not include them?
2. ABS. It can be switchable, so you can turn it off on the track. For us the average driver on street roads in the rain an ABS is a must.
3. Launch control, ala M3 CSL.
4. SMG 2 (of course).

i agree with the last post, switchable abs!! switchable launch control would also be a dream. on the merc engine: only if it is alot better than the bmw, make sure it lives up 2 mclarens reputation. radio would be nice. mayb not make a 'new' mclaren, make it under a dif model, so if its really poor then it wouldnt damage the F1's image. also they said they would never make anymore again, if they did under the f1 name it wuld prob annoy a few ppl, jst like ferrari did wen they said they wuldnt but then did, soz can't remember the model. (i devote all my attention to mclaren!) cn't remember who said bout lowering the price, sorry! however, i agree and disagree, the price should b lowered so i can afford one :biggrin:, but keep the price the same or even higher to keep it even more exclusive