McLaren Boss Denies Rumors of a New F1 - Polidicks

[b]McLaren Boss Denies Rumors of a New F1[/b] Via [url=http://blog.caranddriver.com/mclaren-boss-denies-rumors-of-a-new-f1/]Car And Driver[/url] _________________________ [quote][img]http://i.imgur.com/m9k07nz.jpg[/img] You can’t escape your past. McLaren Automotive is a very different company from the one that produced the original F1 supercar more than 20 years ago, one that today produces a range of cars and employs a staff of more than 1000. Yet it’s fair to say that none of the company’s modern lineup has yet acquired the iconic status enjoyed by the F1, the fastest car in the world when it was introduced and still one of the most desirable megacars. So when British magazine Autocar published a story earlier this week asserting that the company is working on a modern successor to the F1, a car that will share its predecessor’s three-seat layout and central driving position, it created a stir. Unsurprisingly, when journalists got a chance to speak to McLaren boss Mike Flewitt at the company’s financial results meeting, it wasn’t long before he was asked about it. “I’m really not going to comment on that article,” said Flewitt, after jokingly suggesting that he would replace McLaren’s design department with Autocar’s rendering artists. But when pressed, he admitted that customers do frequently request a modern take on the F1. “You get asked all the time,” he said. “I regularly get asked for three seats and a V-12 and a manual gearbox. I just don’t think there’s a real business case to do one of those.”[/quote] Even if they don't build one, I'd be totally fine with it. The P1 has proven to be a worthy successor to the legendary F1. [img]https://thumbs.gfycat.com/SnoopyFrenchCutworm-size_restricted.gif[/img] [i]Dat ass...[/i] [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] Chris Harris's review of the P1 [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufVQ-UKZbro[/media]

At least put a manual gearbox in your P1. Yes, itt'l be slower. No, it won't hurt sales, if anything it'd help them. Some people are crazy enough to find more enjoyment in rowing their own than they gain by the two tenths saved on the track.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50761386]At least put a manual gearbox in your P1. Yes, itt'l be slower. No, it won't hurt sales, if anything it'd help them. Some people are crazy enough to find more enjoyment in rowing their own than they gain by the two tenths saved on the track.[/QUOTE] the problem comes in having to make a low volume bespoke gearbox just for the p1. The p1 they essentially just went to the parts bin for a bunch of it and built it around a pre-existing chassis. its costly [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] also, you say a manual gearbox wont hurt sales, but sales weren't hurt anyway, your point is kinda not there since a manual wouldnt mean they'd make more, they'd just split the portion they were already making between semi auto and fully manual [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] just to clarify, the gearbox used is also shared with other mclaren cars (namely the 650s), but adapted somewhat

[QUOTE=TestECull;50761386]At least put a manual gearbox in your P1. Yes, itt'l be slower. No, it won't hurt sales, if anything it'd help them. Some people are crazy enough to find more enjoyment in rowing their own than they gain by the two tenths saved on the track.[/QUOTE] It wouldn't help sales at all. Take the very last manual gearbox Ferraris. 261 Ferrari Californias were sold in the UK in 2011. Literally only [i]one buyer[/i] bought one with a manual gearbox, and so the California in the UK (and rest of the world IIRC) has only been available with the automatic gearbox ever since. And what about the Ferrari 599? In five years of sale in the UK, not a single manual gearbox 599 was ever bought. [url]http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/features/opinion/tim-pollard/ferrari-click-clack-manual-transmissions-rip/[/url] Supercar makers don't want to put manual gearboxes in their cars. They're scared of them. The increase in 0-100km/h times are significant enough relative to other supercars, that it would deter consumers considering the manual options. So it would be a waste of R&D. Manual gearboxes are more-difficult to set-up for beating emissions tests too, those same tests which are why supercars now have to use forced induction and hybrid drivetrains. And also, we're talking about really rich people as the consumers. The kind of people who buy cars for their prestige and how fast they can get to 100km/h. They don't care about manual gearboxes, especially as shown by the UK sales figures. We all know that you have a boner for old rust buckets, dirty, old and inefficient American V8 engines and using your hand to grip and play with long shafts. But in the real world, there are real reasons why manufacturers do certain things and not do others.

Manual gearboxes make about the strongest emotional argument possible in the car world because people like me who who get hard discussing individual throttle bodies and compression ratios find anything else intolerable. We like control over our clutch and the mechanical satisfaction of pulling a lever to feel synchros engage somewhere under your hand - it cannot be beaten. Impractical and even frustrating at times (driving in heavy traffic in cities, for instance), but if you're driving for pleasure you're a fool to buy an automatic. For this reason I think it's highly likely that in the next ten or so years we'll see an industry of manual conversion companies who will make off-the-shelf kits to convert your 'old' Ferrari 488GTB to a manual box with a chrome shift gate. As for cars leaving the factory with manual boxes? You can't make a business, practicality or even an environmental case for manual gearboxes any more. I think they're pretty likely to go extinct.

[QUOTE=Strike 86;50761959]Manual gearboxes make about the strongest emotional argument possible in the car world because people like me who who get hard discussing individual throttle bodies and compression ratios find anything else intolerable. We like control over our clutch and the mechanical satisfaction of pulling a lever to feel synchros engage somewhere under your hand - it cannot be beaten. Impractical and even frustrating at times (driving in heavy traffic in cities, for instance), but if you're driving for pleasure you're a fool to buy an automatic. For this reason I think it's highly likely that in the next ten or so years we'll see an industry of manual conversion companies who will make off-the-shelf kits to convert your 'old' Ferrari 488GTB to a manual box with a chrome shift gate. [/QUOTE] [all your opinion] [editline]23rd July 2016[/editline] lots of people can drive for pleasure in an auto and find it better for them

[QUOTE=Strike 86;50761959]You can't make a business[/quote] Cheaper to produce and service means cheaper in fleets. They also last the life of the vehicle barring some ape behind the wheel(But they break automatics too, so no loss or gain in either direction). You can either spend $3,000 having an automatic replaced every 150,000 miles or so, or you can spend about $600 to have a clutch disc, pressure plate, throwout bearing replaced and flywheel remachined at the same interval. [quote]practicality[/quote] They are every bit as practical as an automatic with the added benefit of 'Car thieves can't drive them so they're better at keeping your car yours than the strongest Lojac system could ever dream to be'. [quote] or even an environmental case [/quote] They need far less servicing, far lower quantities of oils, last much longer, are much more resource efficient to overhaul, they use far less gas in the city(You can fuck with torque converters for highway MPG but in the city where it [i]has[/i] to slip you're losing a huge chunk of fuel for nothing), and they cost less resources to build. The only four reasons to buy auto are A: You're too damn lazy to row your own, B: You're disabled and physically cannot drive a stick, C: You're buying a car that only comes as such, or D: You're building a ridiculous backyard gokart out of old junkheaps. I found myself in category C when I bought my P71, but heh. I'm converting it at first chance. I fucking hate this auto trans. The shift logic was written by a monkey.

And there I was, thinking from the title, that the FIA were going to fix the current shambles that is the state of Formula 1..

[QUOTE=TestECull;50762476]Cheaper to produce and service means cheaper in fleets. They also last the life of the vehicle barring some ape behind the wheel(But they break automatics too, so no loss or gain in either direction). You can either spend $3,000 having an automatic replaced every 150,000 miles or so, or you can spend about $600 to have a clutch disc, pressure plate, throwout bearing replaced and flywheel remachined at the same interval.[/QUOTE] This is kind of an outdated view - traditionally autos were always more expensive and less reliable/more difficult to service but they're now being manufactured in such quantity that the costs are dropping to the point where an automatic is the same price as the manual in some cars (or are being subsidised by the manufacturer). Give it a few years and the automatic will be the standard and you'll have to pay over the odds for a manual because the tooling won't exist to build them any more. [QUOTE=TestECull;50762476]They are every bit as practical as an automatic with the added benefit of 'Car thieves can't drive them so they're better at keeping your car yours than the strongest Lojac system could ever dream to be'.[/QUOTE] The majority of people living in cities don't want to come home every night with a numb left leg having inched forwards in stationary traffic for 2 hours. Not practical. The second part only really applies in the United States where the majority of cars sold since the '50s have always been automatics. In Europe manuals are the old guard and everybody knows how to use them, although car crime has been plummeting here for years due to unrelated factors. [QUOTE=TestECull;50762476]They need far less servicing, far lower quantities of oils, last much longer, are much more resource efficient to overhaul, they use far less gas in the city(You can fuck with torque converters for highway MPG but in the city where it [I]has[/I] to slip you're losing a huge chunk of fuel for nothing), and they cost less resources to build.[/QUOTE] Most modern dual-clutch and auto boxes (especially those new ZF units which have upwards of 8 ratios) are actually more economical in every situation. As for servicing and overhaul costs, I'd say the motor industry doesn't give a shit. Their be-all and end-all is the CO2 figure in their brochures. Like you said, they sell the majority of their vehicles to the fleet market and after they turn 5-6 years old (less with some manufacturers) they're not really the manufacturer's problem any more. It's easy for some middle manager to tick a box for an easier ride to work, and it sucks for us because we buy and maintain used cars, but they're less hassle for everybody up to that point and the dealers get to charge more for servicing. Win-win in their book. [QUOTE=TestECull;50762476]The only four reasons to buy auto are A: You're too damn lazy to row your own, B: You're disabled and physically cannot drive a stick, C: You're buying a car that only comes as such, or D: You're building a ridiculous backyard gokart out of old junkheaps. I found myself in category C when I bought my P71, but heh. I'm converting it at first chance. I fucking hate this auto trans. The shift logic was written by a monkey.[/QUOTE] No arguments here. That said, I would opt for an automatic if I lived and worked in London or somewhere. Call me a chick if you must. Edit: Just Googled P71 - didn't realise it was a Vic. I'm disgustingly jealous. Wish we could get mad cop cars like that for dirt cheap here.

The elitism some people have about manual gearboxes is ridiculous. And I do say that as someone who does occasionally drive a manual (in a Holden Rodeo) and I quite enjoy it. Yes, manual is fun, but god damn stop putting people down for choosing to go with an auto. Auto can be fun too, and autos today can and do provide better performance and fuel economy - even in the city, where that's especially true for CVT and DCT transmissions, but where torque converter autos have also made huge gains. So what about having an automatic gearbox replaced every 240,000km? Most first buyers don't even hold on to their cars for that long, and what's that, only a few thousand dollars every eight or so years? Besides, I used to drive an old Mitsubishi Magna which was at 300,000km and (pretty sure) it still had its original auto gearbox - so it's certainly not an absolute requirement. Like I can only consider that as a point if you're a cash-strapped redneck, where the solution is simple - just buy a damn used car.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50762476]Cheaper to produce and service means cheaper in fleets. They also last the life of the vehicle barring some ape behind the wheel(But they break automatics too, so no loss or gain in either direction). You can either spend $3,000 having an automatic replaced every 150,000 miles or so, or you can spend about $600 to have a clutch disc, pressure plate, throwout bearing replaced and flywheel remachined at the same interval. They are every bit as practical as an automatic with the added benefit of 'Car thieves can't drive them so they're better at keeping your car yours than the strongest Lojac system could ever dream to be'. They need far less servicing, far lower quantities of oils, last much longer, are much more resource efficient to overhaul, they use far less gas in the city(You can fuck with torque converters for highway MPG but in the city where it [i]has[/i] to slip you're losing a huge chunk of fuel for nothing), and they cost less resources to build. The only four reasons to buy auto are A: You're too damn lazy to row your own, B: You're disabled and physically cannot drive a stick, C: You're buying a car that only comes as such, or D: You're building a ridiculous backyard gokart out of old junkheaps. I found myself in category C when I bought my P71, but heh. I'm converting it at first chance. I fucking hate this auto trans. The shift logic was written by a monkey.[/QUOTE] Modern automatics are no longer the slushbox of the 20th century.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50762476]The only four reasons to buy auto are A: You're too damn lazy to row your own, B: You're disabled and physically cannot drive a stick, C: You're buying a car that only comes as such, or D: You're building a ridiculous backyard gokart out of old junkheaps. I found myself in category C when I bought my P71, but heh. I'm converting it at first chance. I fucking hate this auto trans. The shift logic was written by a monkey.[/QUOTE] Gearbox elitism, now I've seen it all from quality poster TestECull.

[QUOTE=TestECull;50762476]The only four reasons to buy auto are A: You're too damn lazy to row your own, B: You're disabled and physically cannot drive a stick, C: You're buying a car that only comes as such, or D: You're building a ridiculous backyard gokart out of old junkheaps.[/QUOTE] So does the reason "I don't feel like wanting to kill myself in enormous traffic jams when going to/from work in big cities" fall in the A category? Manual is obsolete, and it's only redeeming feature is quite some enjoyment when using it, just like any other skill that you're good at gives you enjoyment

The guy who delivered my Merc C220 a few months back told me it's the 1st manual Merc he's delivered in over a year. He also said he loved driving it over the auto's. It's a personal choice but I prefer manuals all day long.