The McLaren in Park Lane is an Early One
mini magic
06-05-2003, 07:44 PM
so i was looking through my pics and i noticed something (dunno if u guys know this or not), but it has rectangular mirrors, which were only one earlier models, check it out:
mini magic
06-05-2003, 07:48 PM
::
mini magic
06-05-2003, 07:51 PM
whaddya think??
tvrfreak
06-05-2003, 07:56 PM
Nah, I think they are the standard VW Corrado mirrors. Could be the way the light is reflecting, although they don't look any different to me.
mini magic
06-05-2003, 08:43 PM
nevermind, i wasn't comparing these anyway, i was just saying they all look rectangular and i was gonn apost a pic that had different shaped mirrors, but now i see they all the same
Peloton25
06-05-2003, 09:24 PM
There are some early cars with slightly different mirrors. I'm not at home, but when I get there I will try to post examples of both. I would guess that most of them have been updated so that there is now only one style of side mirror on most every car.
>8^)
ER
>8^)
ER
mini magic
06-05-2003, 09:32 PM
here is the newer one, note they are not as big, they look the same length but are shorter
tvrfreak
06-05-2003, 09:42 PM
They look the same to me...standard Corrado mirrors. And the stalks they are mounted on also look the same. Maybe someone could post two pictures side-by-side to show the difference?
Thanks,
Faisal.
Thanks,
Faisal.
tvrfreak
06-05-2003, 10:00 PM
Browsing through Driving Ambition, I read that the original high mirrors with turn signals were found to be illegal in some parts of the world--that is why they were dropped from the original design. In England, McLaren agreed to drop them in exchange for acceptance of the 4-point seat harnesses from the Department of Transport type approval officials.
mini magic
06-05-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by tvrfreak
Browsing through Driving Ambition, I read that the original high mirrors with turn signals were found to be illegal in some parts of the world--that is why they were dropped from the original design. In England, McLaren agreed to drop them in exchange for acceptance of the 4-point seat harnesses from the Department of Transport type approval officials.
there is a debate going on in another thread right now (can't remember which one tho) about this issue
Browsing through Driving Ambition, I read that the original high mirrors with turn signals were found to be illegal in some parts of the world--that is why they were dropped from the original design. In England, McLaren agreed to drop them in exchange for acceptance of the 4-point seat harnesses from the Department of Transport type approval officials.
there is a debate going on in another thread right now (can't remember which one tho) about this issue
tvrfreak
06-05-2003, 10:32 PM
Yeah, I remember that thread...we were talking about the aerodynamic pros and cons of the mirrors. Peloton had originally asked where the mirrors were from.
Peloton25
06-06-2003, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by Peloton25
There are some early cars with slightly different mirrors.
http://a8.cpimg.com/image/4A/65/19660618-43c1-028001E0-.jpg
http://a2.cpimg.com/image/4E/65/19660622-1a28-028001E0-.jpg
http://a3.cpimg.com/image/4F/65/19660623-a10a-028001E0-.jpg
http://a6.cpimg.com/image/52/65/19660626-e70f-028001E0-.jpg
That's what the original F1 mirrors looked like. I know that all the XP's except for XP2 (which had no mirrors) had this style of mirror. Also, some of the early production cars also had these mirrors originally fitted. I'm not sure at what point in production that the factory chose to switch over to the Corrado mirror, but I haven't seen many photos of F1's with this original mirror style. I would guess that the switch happened prior to 1995, as even the original photos of the F1 GTR prototype #01R show the Corrado mirrors fitted to that car.
The images above were chopped out of photos of #002 from the Autocar book, btw. I don't have a scanner yet, so I took them with my digital camera and apologize for the so-so quality.
Now in looking at photos of the London dealer car, I have to say that those are the Corrado mirrors fitted to that car in every one that I can tell. We'll just have to wait till you get there to see whether it's really an "early" model.
mini-magic - I don't agree that the photo you posted along with this comment "here is the newer one, note they are not as big, they look the same length but are shorter" is actually a shot of the new mirrors. It's hard to be 100% certain, but I think I'm right.
BTW: If anyone needs some close-ups on the Corrado mirrors for comparison, let me know and I'll toss them up this weekend sometime.
>8^)
ER
There are some early cars with slightly different mirrors.
http://a8.cpimg.com/image/4A/65/19660618-43c1-028001E0-.jpg
http://a2.cpimg.com/image/4E/65/19660622-1a28-028001E0-.jpg
http://a3.cpimg.com/image/4F/65/19660623-a10a-028001E0-.jpg
http://a6.cpimg.com/image/52/65/19660626-e70f-028001E0-.jpg
That's what the original F1 mirrors looked like. I know that all the XP's except for XP2 (which had no mirrors) had this style of mirror. Also, some of the early production cars also had these mirrors originally fitted. I'm not sure at what point in production that the factory chose to switch over to the Corrado mirror, but I haven't seen many photos of F1's with this original mirror style. I would guess that the switch happened prior to 1995, as even the original photos of the F1 GTR prototype #01R show the Corrado mirrors fitted to that car.
The images above were chopped out of photos of #002 from the Autocar book, btw. I don't have a scanner yet, so I took them with my digital camera and apologize for the so-so quality.
Now in looking at photos of the London dealer car, I have to say that those are the Corrado mirrors fitted to that car in every one that I can tell. We'll just have to wait till you get there to see whether it's really an "early" model.
mini-magic - I don't agree that the photo you posted along with this comment "here is the newer one, note they are not as big, they look the same length but are shorter" is actually a shot of the new mirrors. It's hard to be 100% certain, but I think I'm right.
BTW: If anyone needs some close-ups on the Corrado mirrors for comparison, let me know and I'll toss them up this weekend sometime.
>8^)
ER
mini magic
06-06-2003, 11:16 AM
i need to get that autocar book..
Peloton25
06-06-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by mini magic
i need to get that autocar book..
It's not the greatest - but it has a few bits and pieces of the puzzle that you won't find elsewhere. It's a softbound book - around 100 pages I believe - more like a magazine, so don't expect too much from it.
Also, remeber that the info in that book only applies to the F1 road cars as it was published in early 1994. There are a lot of pieces to the story that just aren't covered. Also, the photos inside aren't terribly spectacular. Most of them are studio shots of #002 which had just been completed by the factory at the time of printing. Most of the good photos span two pages so I have been contemplating picking up another copy so I can cut it up and scan them.
The copy I purchased via flEaBAY ended up costing me over $30 including freight and insurance, so I'm not eager to spend that much to get another copy. Especially since I just plan to tear it apart for scans, and even more so considering the book was originally a free insert with the Autocar subscription that year. :eek:
>8^)
ER
i need to get that autocar book..
It's not the greatest - but it has a few bits and pieces of the puzzle that you won't find elsewhere. It's a softbound book - around 100 pages I believe - more like a magazine, so don't expect too much from it.
Also, remeber that the info in that book only applies to the F1 road cars as it was published in early 1994. There are a lot of pieces to the story that just aren't covered. Also, the photos inside aren't terribly spectacular. Most of them are studio shots of #002 which had just been completed by the factory at the time of printing. Most of the good photos span two pages so I have been contemplating picking up another copy so I can cut it up and scan them.
The copy I purchased via flEaBAY ended up costing me over $30 including freight and insurance, so I'm not eager to spend that much to get another copy. Especially since I just plan to tear it apart for scans, and even more so considering the book was originally a free insert with the Autocar subscription that year. :eek:
>8^)
ER
tvrfreak
06-06-2003, 12:32 PM
According to Driving Ambition, Peter Stevens liked these mirrors and originally used them on the Esprit Mk2 and Jaguar XJR-15. They are originally from the Citroen CX.
Later on, other people also put them on the XJ220 and a couple of other cars.
Later on, other people also put them on the XJ220 and a couple of other cars.
mini magic
06-06-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by tvrfreak
According to Driving Ambition, Peter Stevens liked these mirrors and originally used them on the Esprit Mk2 and Jaguar XJR-15. They are originally from the Citroen CX.
Later on, other people also put them on the XJ220 and a couple of other cars.
even tho i like the looks of the xjr15, it was the worst handling car EVER according to tiff, jc and others who drove it. jc actually crashed it, and that was even when it had a HUGE lemans style wing. i'll scan the article later
According to Driving Ambition, Peter Stevens liked these mirrors and originally used them on the Esprit Mk2 and Jaguar XJR-15. They are originally from the Citroen CX.
Later on, other people also put them on the XJ220 and a couple of other cars.
even tho i like the looks of the xjr15, it was the worst handling car EVER according to tiff, jc and others who drove it. jc actually crashed it, and that was even when it had a HUGE lemans style wing. i'll scan the article later
tvrfreak
06-08-2003, 04:04 AM
you have to remember the context that these cars are evaluated in. it may be at the bottom of the supercar heap, but that is still a far superior driving experience than 95% of the cars out there.
there was a one-make series for these powerful cars, and i am sure that as race cars, they are extensively adjustable. i would be more inclined to believe the journalist if he spent a day or two testing with the car and setting it up with an engineering support team. if he still said that it handled terribly, then i would believe him. otherwise, it's a matter of dialling the car in properly. i don't think these cars can be evaluated by a journalist like any other mass-produced sedan.
as for a wing, all it does is produce downforce at speed if it's working properly. it won't stop you from driving wrong or from driving into obstacles or off the track. again, it needs to be dialled in for the conditions. and once you get a car sideways, it does nothing. in fact, the turbulent wash of air over the wing presenting itself to the wind at an unintended angle can make it more difficult to regain control of the car. heck, the clk-gtr's wing causes it to take off instead of pushing it down on the track. that doesn't mean the car is a piece of crap.
tiff needell is able to get comfortable in all sorts of cars rather quickly, and give us a good feel for it. he has extensive racing experience, and i respect his opinion greatly. so there is probably some truth in the xjr-15 not handling well. but i think it can be set up to be far better than it is.
jc, on the other hand, just loves to come up with humourous quips. i enjoy his commentary, but don't really take him too seriously. he didn't even include the mclaren f1 in his list of the top 100 cars of all time. he claimed that getting in and out was too difficult, and the driving position was "just silly." and his pick for the number one car was an eagle jaguar e-type. it's a great car, yes, but number one? please!
there was a one-make series for these powerful cars, and i am sure that as race cars, they are extensively adjustable. i would be more inclined to believe the journalist if he spent a day or two testing with the car and setting it up with an engineering support team. if he still said that it handled terribly, then i would believe him. otherwise, it's a matter of dialling the car in properly. i don't think these cars can be evaluated by a journalist like any other mass-produced sedan.
as for a wing, all it does is produce downforce at speed if it's working properly. it won't stop you from driving wrong or from driving into obstacles or off the track. again, it needs to be dialled in for the conditions. and once you get a car sideways, it does nothing. in fact, the turbulent wash of air over the wing presenting itself to the wind at an unintended angle can make it more difficult to regain control of the car. heck, the clk-gtr's wing causes it to take off instead of pushing it down on the track. that doesn't mean the car is a piece of crap.
tiff needell is able to get comfortable in all sorts of cars rather quickly, and give us a good feel for it. he has extensive racing experience, and i respect his opinion greatly. so there is probably some truth in the xjr-15 not handling well. but i think it can be set up to be far better than it is.
jc, on the other hand, just loves to come up with humourous quips. i enjoy his commentary, but don't really take him too seriously. he didn't even include the mclaren f1 in his list of the top 100 cars of all time. he claimed that getting in and out was too difficult, and the driving position was "just silly." and his pick for the number one car was an eagle jaguar e-type. it's a great car, yes, but number one? please!
mini magic
06-08-2003, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by tvrfreak
you have to remember the context that these cars are evaluated in. it may be at the bottom of the supercar heap, but that is still a far superior driving experience than 95% of the cars out there.
there was a one-make series for these powerful cars, and i am sure that as race cars, they are extensively adjustable. i would be more inclined to believe the journalist if he spent a day or two testing with the car and setting it up with an engineering support team. if he still said that it handled terribly, then i would believe him. otherwise, it's a matter of dialling the car in properly. i don't think these cars can be evaluated by a journalist like any other mass-produced sedan.
as for a wing, all it does is produce downforce at speed if it's working properly. it won't stop you from driving wrong or from driving into obstacles or off the track. again, it needs to be dialled in for the conditions. and once you get a car sideways, it does nothing. in fact, the turbulent wash of air over the wing presenting itself to the wind at an unintended angle can make it more difficult to regain control of the car. heck, the clk-gtr's wing causes it to take off instead of pushing it down on the track. that doesn't mean the car is a piece of crap.
tiff needell is able to get comfortable in all sorts of cars rather quickly, and give us a good feel for it. he has extensive racing experience, and i respect his opinion greatly. so there is probably some truth in the xjr-15 not handling well. but i think it can be set up to be far better than it is.
jc, on the other hand, just loves to come up with humourous quips. i enjoy his commentary, but don't really take him too seriously. he didn't even include the mclaren f1 in his list of the top 100 cars of all time. he claimed that getting in and out was too difficult, and the driving position was "just silly." and his pick for the number one car was an eagle jaguar e-type. it's a great car, yes, but number one? please!
i'm not sure, if you read the article you may think differently, unfortunatley my scanner is broken (damn drivers) so you'll have to wait 3 weeks until i get back from england to read it. but you made some good points
you have to remember the context that these cars are evaluated in. it may be at the bottom of the supercar heap, but that is still a far superior driving experience than 95% of the cars out there.
there was a one-make series for these powerful cars, and i am sure that as race cars, they are extensively adjustable. i would be more inclined to believe the journalist if he spent a day or two testing with the car and setting it up with an engineering support team. if he still said that it handled terribly, then i would believe him. otherwise, it's a matter of dialling the car in properly. i don't think these cars can be evaluated by a journalist like any other mass-produced sedan.
as for a wing, all it does is produce downforce at speed if it's working properly. it won't stop you from driving wrong or from driving into obstacles or off the track. again, it needs to be dialled in for the conditions. and once you get a car sideways, it does nothing. in fact, the turbulent wash of air over the wing presenting itself to the wind at an unintended angle can make it more difficult to regain control of the car. heck, the clk-gtr's wing causes it to take off instead of pushing it down on the track. that doesn't mean the car is a piece of crap.
tiff needell is able to get comfortable in all sorts of cars rather quickly, and give us a good feel for it. he has extensive racing experience, and i respect his opinion greatly. so there is probably some truth in the xjr-15 not handling well. but i think it can be set up to be far better than it is.
jc, on the other hand, just loves to come up with humourous quips. i enjoy his commentary, but don't really take him too seriously. he didn't even include the mclaren f1 in his list of the top 100 cars of all time. he claimed that getting in and out was too difficult, and the driving position was "just silly." and his pick for the number one car was an eagle jaguar e-type. it's a great car, yes, but number one? please!
i'm not sure, if you read the article you may think differently, unfortunatley my scanner is broken (damn drivers) so you'll have to wait 3 weeks until i get back from england to read it. but you made some good points
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026