Talk:McLaren F1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Consistency with numbers

It is confusing to have the list of times for various speeds written with commas while every other number on the page uses decimal points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.13.6 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 December 2005‎

NOT world's fastest production car

The Dauer 962 is a production car, and is faster than the F1. Numerous sources indicate as such, here's one for the record: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 22 December 2005‎

This article is about the McLaren F1 not the Dauer. The Dauer is a modified Porsche and therefore not a production car in the generally understood sense. By all means link to the Dauer as a comparative vehicle but making the article more about the Dauer than the F1 is a bit silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamE (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 December 2005‎

It would also be handy if you read your own source. The article says that over 150 Porsche 962's were built and "more than a dozen" were modified by Dauer. It does not state that 150 were built by Dauer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamE (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 December 2005‎

The Dauer 962 was used in GT1 class racing, which at the time required that a homologation run of 25 units be produced in road-legal form and sold to the public. The 962 was allowed to compete, so it must have met the regulation. The list of automotibe superlatives seen here gives the following defintion of a production vehicle:

1. 20 or more examples must have been made by the original vehicle manufacturer and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition - cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible
2. They must be street-legal in their intended markets and capable of passing any tests or inspections required to be granted this status
3. They must have been built for retail sale to consumers for their personal use on public roads - no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible

The 962s that were sold as race cars were built ONLY to be sold as road going cars, not to be entered in competition.

The 962 meets the above listed criteria and thus qualifies as a production car. Also, my source read as follows: "Nearly 150 were sold and because of such a large customer programme, every component was available off the shelf direct from Porsche" Apparently it's your reading comprehension that's in need of some work. You owe me an apology and you need to revert back to my edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.36.17.218 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 23 December 2005‎

I will not get into an edit war with you but I will correct you on a few points. Firstly you are confusing the argument here with that on the Automotive superlatives page where I notice your edits have been corrected by another user. I removed your edits from this page as they were factually incorrect. Another user removed your edits from that page as the car does not qualify according to the rules laid out. Firstly your source CLEARLY states that 150 or so 962's were made by PORCHE not by Dauer. You even quote it yourself while ignoring the Dauer production figures a few lines later in the same article. Apologoy? Read you own sources CAREFULLY before jumping to conclusions. I'm sorry to say that it seems like you read the article and only saw what you wanted to see. It clearly states that "more than a dozen" have been modified by Dauer - if we want to be precise the exact number is thirteen. 13. Ten plus three. Don't confuse existing GT1 homologation rules with those existing at the time of the 962's production. Dauer went racing with the first few 962's they modified as any homologation needed was done by PORSCHE who NEVER made a SINGLE road going 962. It qualified as a MODIFIED/PRIVATEER PORSCHE 962. Only after racing did they make any road cars. That the McLaren's performance figures even stand comparison to a modified race car bears witness to its pedigree. To sum up - Porsche made about 150 962's for track use. Dauer, along with other privateer teems raced some of them. Dauer went on to modify some for road use. Ergo the Dauer is a modified Porsche and not a production car. On the other hand we look at the F1. McLaren made the cars and you could drive it out of the showroom. They also happened to be fast enough to race. See the difference? By the way, welcome to Wikipedia and feel free to create an account for yourself. --LiamE 10:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to add clarification about GT1 homologation. At the time there was a loophole which permitted homologation with 1 car not 25. Porsche homologated the 962 using this loophole and later Dauer did the same homologating their Le Mans version of the 962, the 962 LM in the same way. Amazing what you can find at your source if you read it. Oh and quoting your own source, "Since then, the standard conversion has been continually updated and improved, more than a dozen having been completed so far. Each one is based on an original Porsche 962, the donor car being completely stripped and rebuilt." And to quote supercars.net "In total 13 Dauer conversions have been finished, and Dauer are still taking orders for more cars." Notice the use of "conversion" by both sources. Merry christmas. --LiamE 11:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Output is 627, Dauer 962 is not fastest production car

The output on the McLaren F1 is 627 horsepower. This is coming from many sources including the book Driving Ambition, written by Doug Nye with Ron Dennis (the other guy behind the creation of the F1) and the book is about the development of the vehicle and nothing else. The book is considered to be the equivelent of The Bible for McLaren F1 fans and is the definitive source for information on the vehicle. Car and Driver magazine have tested an Ameritech McLaren F1, Ameritech being a company which modifies F1s so they are more appropriate for road use in America, these modifications changing the performance of the vehicle slightly.

Also, the Dauer 962 can in no way qualify for the fastest production car for one reason - it is a modified vehicle. All Dauer 962s are modified versions of Porsche 962s, which are racing vehicles. They can make as many Dauer 962s as they want and it won't be a production vehicle. It's the same as someone modifying, say, a Porsche 911 to outrageous specifications and claiming it to be the world's fastest production car. The Dauer 962 may be the world's fastest street-legal vehicle but I doubt that as well. I will not deny the fact that it can go 251 mph however, this has been confirmed. The development of the Koenigsegg CCR and the production version of the Bugatti Veyron also makes claiming the Dauer 962 as the fastest pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NIRVANA2764 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 January 2006‎

Here, here. I don't think the article benefits in any way at all from comparisons to modified cars and track cars like the Dauers and Rufs - and even they pale in comparsion to some street legal drag cars capable of 300mph or more. You may as well compare it to Thrust SSC. But alas my effort to try and remove them failed and people kept putting back that rubbish. On the question of power output is your source specific as to whether its imperial or metric hp? I always assumed it to be an imperial hp figure as its a Brit car company but as has been pointed out elsewhere the engine manufacturer is German and likely to quote in metric and there is no clarification available from a definitive source. --LiamE 15:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Racing car template

I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. To be applicable to all racing cars it would be rather different to the road car based format used here (which is fine, by the way! I just think there's a need for something else as well, especially for single seaters) I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 10:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Huge POV in Record Claims

Holy moly. Am I the only one who's smelling the hugely defensive tone in the record claims section? This is seriously POV. I don't know anything about this subject, so I'd rather not do any editing, but something needs to be done, here. --Matt S. 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Power output

Car and Driver has twice reported that the F1 produced 618 SAE net horsepower. This equates to 461 kW or 627 PS. Other sources have listed 627 hp, equating to 636 PS or 468 kW. I know that this discussion is not yet settled in Talk:List of automotive superlatives, but I wanted to note that these numbers were reported in a reputable source. --SFoskett 00:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Auto Zeitung reports 461 kW as well in this archived article. I have an Automobil Revue catalog at home. Will have the page scanned ASAP. --Pc13 July 8, 2005 18:12 (UTC)

This picture shows 636PS: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F1%20B/mclaren1527703c0rxs.jpg --Aml 0000 19:35, May 20, 2006

This pretty much seals it for me. Straight from the horses mouth, if you'll pardon the pun. Its 461 kW 627 PS or 618 hp. [2] --LiamE 23:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher owns an F1?

Someone put up a claim that says Michael Schumacher own an F1, but he denies it. Can anyone validate this or find a source for this information? --g8or8de 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He may well do - he is a very wealthy man who likes fast cars. He would never say on the record that he did own one even if it were true whilst being employed by Ferrari as their top driver and marketing pony. --LiamE 16:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Australian McLarens

Two McLaren F1's thought to be in Australia: one is said to be part of the Lindsay Fox collection; the other - a silver, Victorian-registered car - was once (still?) owned by ex-Coca-Cola Australia Chairman, Dean Willis. It is this car that was badly damaged in a single-vehicle accident at West Head, Sydney after being taken for a test-drive by a once trusted BMW mechanic. The car was rebuilt and is still regularly spotted in Melbourne, Victoria. -- ChrisB 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) There is also a LARK livered GTR in Australia.

Turbochargers do not increase weight

The article stated that turbochargers increase weight. This is incorrect. For engines that produce identical power outputs and are used for the same tasks, the turbocharged engine will typically weigh significantly less, assuming comparably modern technologies. Also, the article went on to state as fact that turbochargers reduce reliability. Turbocharged engines can be and are made to the same reliability specfications as naturally-aspirated engines. Consider the turbocharged engines used in airplanes that certainly must meet high reliability requirements. Reliability is a function of engineering effort across the entire system. Using a turbo or supercharger is not a kiss of death, and to assert that turbocharged engines are inherently less reliable shows a non-neutral attitude towards supercharging technologies. One could just as easily say that, in order to keep development costs down, McLaren had to stick with a naturally-aspirated design. I find the argument that the naturally-aspirated engine is easier to control by the driver to be more persuasive. Actually, I think it's even more convincing to see this as a marketing choice influenced by the fact that turbocharging had been recently banned in actual Formula 1 racing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.251.133 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 February 2006‎

I don't see where it says that turbochargers would increase weight. But yes a normally aspirated car has less things to go wrong and is in that sense going to be more reliable - if it aint there it can't break. The choice to go for a powerful noramlly aspirated car was one of driver control - particulary throttle response and ultimately control. --LiamE 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding a turbocharger to a car without any other drastic modifications will of course increase the weight. Of course, one could use a smaller engine in combination with the turbo system, reducing weight overall. The consequences are turbo lag (which GM absolutely detested on a road car), reduced reliability, noise, complexity, stronger (heavier) pistons, little low-end torque, and the simple fact that there are more things to break. Murray wished the F1 to be simply the best road car ever, and he would never be able to rest knowing his car had to rely on turbochargers for its power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futileprsuit (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 February 2006‎

I agree that the issue of weight is complex. It could be argued that engines with forced induction have a superior power-to-weight ratio than those but it would be difficult to make such an argument without some clear evidence to support it and that evidence would be difficult to come by. I haven't seen any examples of engineer undertaking a specific test of this. That is, designing a normally-aspirated engine to produce a target output and then redesigning a turbocharged engine to meet the same target, installing them in a car with all the extra hardware necessary to make the turbocharged car work properly and then weighing both to see which was lighter. I think the more convincing argument is to look at applications where weight is key. Take small aircraft for example. How many of them use forced-induction? I believe you'll find that the majority of them use normally-aspirated engines. However, the argument that turbocharged engines are less reliable is much easier to make. Turbocharging an engine creates all sorts of reliability problems. Most of these problems have to do with heat and lubrication but there are also the mechanical issue that arise in any situation where complexity is added to a mechanism. You could argue that it is possible to build turbocharged engines to a certain reliability target, you know, x hours of trouble-free operation between service intervals or like that. But you can't argue that a turbocharged engine is as reliable as a normally-aspirated engine with the same output because it simply cannot be. --Curtis Bledsoe 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of owners list

At the end of the week, due to numerous vandalism of other pages that had lists like that which has now been subsequently removed as a result, this famous owners' list will be removed. If anybody want to discuss or object, feel free. Willirennen 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As the list is currently being reformatted as chassis list, the list can stay, though it will need any form of cleanup. Anything unverified will have to go. In the other hand, there is a good but not up to date chassis list and a more detailed one and this one if you are interested. Good luck with it! Willirennen 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been updating chassis list as following format:

1. 073 1998, sequence of car built, colour. McLaren Chassis number eg: SA9AB5AC4W1048073. Engine number eg: GTR LM 61121 6053 1648, Registration number, Owner, comment.

Removed the registration numbers, as these allow people to trace the location of these valuable cars, potentially putting their owners at risk - see objections voiced here - http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=422367&i=0

Removal of opening section

This seems a little too much like original research, and is also compromised by weasel words: The car remains as one of the most popular modern supercars, and is quickly securing a spot among the most famous cars ever made. I think the page and car speak for themselves, so have removed it. Bob talk 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

production numbers

on McLaren's website it say that 64 F1s were made and 3 GTs, this article has it at 65 and 2 respectivly. I'm going to change this, unless there was a reason for it to contradict what McLaren says.--Dylan2106 14:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

McLaren's website includes the F1 GT Prototype in their total of 3 F1 GTs. Therefore the numbers are correct in saying 2 production GTs and 1 prototype GT. The 65th normal F1 was also recently auctioned off, so that number is not disputed. The359 04:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

The McLaren F1 is a British car, and McLaren a British company. Therefore, I propose that the spelling of certain words be changed from American to British English. Words such as "Carbon Fiber" should be changed to "Carbon Fibre". "Tires" should be "Tyres".

R5gordini 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

changes made. as well as 'color' changed to 'colour'. along with minor gramatical corrections that I managed to pick out.

Performance/Veyron

Is there a specific reason as to why the Bugatti Veyron's acceleration times are posted in the F1's performance section? These statistics are already covered over in the Veyron's article, and seem irrelevant in a discussion of F1 specs. They should be omitted, as they appear arbitrarily thrown in for comparison, and contain no elaboration to justify their presence. GregTheVirus 23:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Production: 1998 or 1996

In the first (or so) sentence of the article, it says that production was until 1998, but in the rectangle at the right, it says until 1996, so this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.134.62 (talk) 12:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:McLaren F1 Models.jpg

Image:McLaren F1 Models.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

References

This is a great article, so it will be a real shame if it's deleted due to not citing any references. Please help! Socrates2008 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Driving Ambition (ISBN-13: 978-1852278410) which includes a lot of this information - would this be appropriate to use in citations? Gavint0 (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It would. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Dawes crash - which car?

See [3]. The article has a list of cars; do we know in which one he crashed & burned? Might we want to amend the "so safe you can crash it in t-shirt & shorts" paragraph? --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

30k

I think it should mention that it costs 30,000 BRITISH POUNDS for mantainance (every 6000 miles) on a McLaren F1 LM.. this could go under price..

Wow, that's five quid per mile. --Curtis Bledsoe 15:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you get the underside polished! Halmyre (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable Owners Discussion

I am glad someone removed Bill Gates from the notable owners list. Forbes.com states that he owns a convertible Porsche Carrera. Just because he is the richest man in the world, does not mean people should add his name under owners of the most expensive vehicle! Could someone add a citation as to confirm the other individuals as well such as Larry Ellison, Wyclef, and Elon Musk? Thank you!--Theelectricchild 00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

i think you mean a Porsche Carrera GT (which is not convertible, its a roadster).. and you're making it sound like bill gates couldn't afford a mclaren f1.. (which he can, since he has about 50,000 million $)

I think you mean $50 billion

$50 billion is 50,000 million....

Jay Leno talks about the McLaren F1 that he owns, and claims that it won't even go 200 mph. This is in an article about the Tesla electric car, see: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/new_car_reviews/article2036260.ece?OTC-HPtoppuff&ATTR=teslac —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wingcmdr (talk • contribs) 08:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

uhm, no. he claims he has only taken it up to 190 mph on a track and it scared the hell out of him. and anyone driving at those speeds on a road should be in prison. nothing to do with whether the car is capable of over 200 mph or not (which is perfectly well established, it is) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.5.191.140 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Production numbers: 107 or 100 or 72?

This article claims 107 McL F1s were produced, however the official McLaren website clearly states only 72 were made (+28 Italic textraceItalic text cars = 100 in total) were produced - 65 for the public etc. What is the source of the 107 statistic?

• 64 McLaren F1s (chassis numbers 001 - 075, skipping a few along the way)[4]
• 5 McLaren F1 prototypes (chassis numbers XP1 - XP5)
• 5 McLaren F1 LMs (chassis numbers LM1 - LM5)[5]
• 1 McLaren F1 LM prototype (chassis number XPLM)
• 2 McLaren F1 GTs (chassis numbers 054 and 058)[6]
• 1 McLaren F1 GT prototype (chassis 056 XPGT)
• 9 McLaren F1 GTR '95s (chassis numbers 01R - 09R)[7]
• 9 McLaren F1 GTR '96s (chassis numbers 10R - 18R)[8]
• 10 McLaren F1 GTR '97s (chassis numbers 19R - 28R)[9]

That comes to a total of 106 McLaren F1s, with 71 being customer cars, 7 being prototypes, and 28 being racing cars. This list does not include the recently sold McLaren F1 #65 though. Therefore we do indeed get 72 total road cars (65 F1s + 5 LMs + 2 GTs = 72) and 100 "total" cars sold (72 road cars + 28 race cars = 100), plus the 7 unsold/destroyed prototypes. The359 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that not all McLaren F1 LMs are painted orange. Only 3 of the 5 are, plus the prototype. The359 11:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The introduction said only 64 standard F1s were built, but then gave the 107 total. With 64 standard F1s you get 106 production cars, so I altered it to 65 to account for the one sold in 2004. Thorin98 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Mclaren F1 LM needs a separate article

I feel that the Mclaren F1 LM section here is short and it should be elaborated on, thus I suggest we create a separate article for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posix memalign (talk • contribs) 10:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It might help to get other people's opinions before you simply do what you wanted. It's a bit silly to ask people if they think it deserves a separate article if you're just going to do it anyway.

And no, it doesn't. There is nothing written in the separate article that isn't already on this article, and a special model of which there are only 5/6 isn't really deserving of its own article. This has been tried once before, and the result was a swift remerging of the two. The359 (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall asking, I just stated my opinion, and I thought I could start writing in the hope that others would join me. If everyone disagrees then it is a small feat to remove it, I guess it takes around 30 seconds or so, please don't be so hostile. :-)

Sure there is interesting information to be written, e.g. how well does the LM perform on the track compared to the standard F1, and how does this compare to other modern supercars on the track? Or obvious things such as a more structured and elaborate list of the modifications and specifications. Posix memalign (talk) 12:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand what Wikipedia is about. We're not about track time comparisons, elaborate lists of modifications, or things such as these. We're not a car comparison guide, we're an Encyclopedia. The359 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to fail in observing that exactly this kind of information has been added to the McLaren F1 article, and no one else (not even yourself) modified it, deleted it, placed a tag on it, or even commented on it. This isn't the reason you are against this. The truth is you feel the LM isn't different enough, and you feel it isn't built in many enough examples to justify a separate article. But that is merely your subjective opinion, now if everyone else would agree with you it would be a consensus and I would of course yield to that, but it isn't yet. The old McLaren F1 LM article was very poor, and stagnated due to no information being added to it, since then the standard F1 article has made great progress and I think the LM article can do the same. Posix memalign (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I never once said the current McLaren F1 article was good or well written. It even failed GA recently. The LM isn't different enough from the standard car to deserve its own article. It's a variant. Notice we have no article on the F1 GT, a car which is in fact further modified from the F1 than the F1 LM is. And the existance of the F1 GTR article is merely to discuss the car's factual race history. We have no article on the limited edition Bugatti Veyron Pur Sang because it's easily discussed on the Veyron article. Throwing every conceivable bit of technical data at the LM article is not progress. The359 (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fastest "Naturally Aspirated" Car ??

Gimme a break !! So, there's a faster car that is super-naturally aspirated ?? Can we cut out the pretensions and just say that there IS a faster car than the McLaren F1 ?? SystemBuilder (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

We already do say there is a faster car by saying it held the record until 2005. It is notable that there have not been any faster naturally aspirated cars. I'm not really sure what you mean by "super-naturally aspirated". Generally you would say "forced induction", meaning either turbocharged or supercharged. swaq 16:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Swaq on this issue. It is notable to say the least that the F1 is still the fastest naturally aspirated car. In the introduction this is presented without detail by merely stating there is a faster car and the issue is further elaborated within the article itself. Posix memalign (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing "fastest naturally aspirated car" fact.

How should we go about citing this fact?

The way it is done now is completely wrong, I will remove it as soon as I can find the strength to do it (I have rearranging the citations as removing the first citation makes others invalid). We cannot cite the reference used currently, it only states that the F1 was ONCE the fastest car, not that it is still the fastest NA machine.

Prior to the current state of the article, I had cited every known car to beat the F1, the references I used contained information to state the engine in said car was forced inducted. I did it this way to show any reader that it could be deduced that the F1 is the fastest NA car -- however, someone came along and ruined that, that someone is "Pomerpants", so thanks, Pomerpants! What you changed it to is _completely_ inaccurate!

Now, as there are so few cars that are superior in top speed to the F1 it is rather trivial to deduce that the F1 is the fastest NA, however, does this need a citation? And if so, how do we cite it? Posix memalign (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

McLaren F1 LM 0-100-0 times

The article has the 0-100-0 time down as 8.5 seconds, which is inaccurate. The actual time that the LM achieved is 11.5 seconds (http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/cars/f1lm_track-record.htm). I changed it last week but it was edited back saying that my numbers are incorrect, so I hope that this could be altered to the correct number that I provided.

Please note that I would do it myself, but Wikipedia code is somewhat of a murky area for me at this time. I suppose that the correct section has to be edited and than have the above link cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.212.163 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I recommend using the edit summary to explain your changes in the future so they won't be identified as vandalism. Thanks for providing a source here, I will undo my revert of that change. swaq 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:McLaren F1/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unfortunately, I am failing this article for GAN because it is severely lacking in inline citations. Several sections are adequately referenced, while others, such as " Prototypes", "F1 GT", and " Motorsports" go completely unreferenced. Please resolve this issue then feel free to bring the article back for renomination. Gary King (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

-I agree. A UK magazine Autocar did the 0-100-0 test and I also read 11.5 sec. Also, the 2.9 seconds 0-60 figure for the LM isn't credible to me, so whilst I'm a big fan of the car, I'd like to see the facts. Autocar found the LM slower off the line than the standard car, possibly due to the stiffer suspension and not being able to get the power down without wheel spin. See a video of the standard F1 accelerate from standstill and the front of the car lifts noticeably whilst the back is pinned to the tarmac helping real tire grip considerably. Quoting 2.9 from a car forum is NOT valid IMO. It's probably around 4 seconds regardless of the additional power and reduced weight over the normal F1. However, once the LM is up to speed, I'd expect it to be signiciantly quicker than the standard model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.161.14 (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Roll bar absence - reference needed or viewer error

The sentence "allowing anti roll bars to be omitted" appears in this article but is not supported by textually adjacent reference 9. The front-rear weight balancing described in the article doesn't relate to the side-side weight transfer issues addressed by roll bars (IMU), but I may have misunderstood the sentence. Ed.norris (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur, I'm the one responsible and I realize I've made a mistake, I've fixed it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posix memalign (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

modem socket

not worth mentioning the fact that the car has a modem socket, which when plugged in and connect, Mclaren can tell you whats wrong with the car anywhere in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanex (talk • contribs) 13:20, 27 February 2006‎

Better than that, it is actually a GSM modem. If you've got a mobile phone signal so you can call the factory, then they can call the car and run diagnostics. Now, this is unencyclopedic, but I remember one occasion from my time at McLaren... a German customer telephoned the customer liaison and said "I am having some trouble with my car, the engine is running lumpy and the warning came on so I've stopped. What is wrong?" So, the service team dialled into his car, assessed the issue and delivered the verdict. "Sir, we believe the issue is with the engine management system, the log seems to show that you've been driving everywhere at over 200mph, that can't be right.". The response? "No, that is quite correct.". This particular customer was a businessman who lived in the country and worked in the city, so would do a commute of about 200 miles EACH WAY every day, usually at over 200mph for most of it. He'd been doing this for some months before the engine went "lumpy". Amazing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 01:01, 22 June 2009‎ (talk • contribs) 81.107.183.201

I don't believe you, if you have any sources that can confirm that there is in fact GSM functionality present in the stock McLaren F1, then please post your source(s) here and the article will be updated accordingly. Posix memalign (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the "going everywhere at 200 mph" story elsewhere - the owner in question apparently being McLaren racer and banker Thomas Bscher.Mr Larrington (talk)

Renomination!

What needs to be done for the article to be reevaluated? I believe that the article has improved substantially since it failed to meet the "Good article" criteria.

"Unfortunately, I am failing this article for GAN because it is severely lacking in inline citations. Several sections are adequately referenced, while others, such as " Prototypes", "F1 GT", and " Motorsports" go completely unreferenced. Please resolve this issue then feel free to bring the article back for renomination. Gary King (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)"

This is the stated reason for failing to comply with the "Good article" criteria. This is over one year ago now, and I feel these issues are more or less resolved as of this date. Thus I suggest the article be renominated, at least there is little doubt the article has improved since last time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Posix memalign (talk • contribs) 01:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

mclaren f1 company

surely im really concerned with the mclaren lack of pace. like lewis have mantioned before that mclaren are the third best interms of pace from their rivals ferrari and the red bull which is very very true. mclaren are so lucky that they have two best experianced drivers in the world thats why they keep leading both on the constructors and drivers championships . if it wasent them two drivers they would be at the very very bottom of all tables.i am a true lewis fan. the mclaren should do something urgently to improve the pace of the car. last more thing is when hamilton will be trying to attack you will hear from the team radio saying that he should start to save fuel . this is totally rediculers how can someone stop to attack when trying to win the race. i have a lot to talk about but this is what i think mclaren should improve. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.152.196 (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Senna's involvement

This article really needs to say something about Senna's involvement with the F1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.26.98 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Pessimistic performance numbers - update 10/18/2011

The acceleration numbers in this entry are from the R&T test of the Ameritech McLaren F1. It weighed some 200 lbs more the UK model and had additional emissions equipment that lowered the power output. The original car was as follows: 0-60 MPH, 3.2s. 0-100 MPH, 6.3s. 0-150MPH, 12.8s. 0-200 MPH, 28.0s. The 1/4 mile was 11.1 @ 138 MPH. At minimum, these numbers (obtained from the the original 1994 review from Autocar magazine) should be included alongside R&T's. Alexdi (talk) 07:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Posix memalign (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the page: http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsData/McLaren-F1-6.0-V12/204160/ Alexdi (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the first time I've seen 203 mph top speed for the F1, I would rather not use this source as it conflicts with the top speed figures from all the other sources. Posix memalign (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it is further elaborated in the same test and explains why it tested to 203 mph. Posix memalign (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have hereby updated the article with the performance numbers from AutoCar, I've also added performance numbers from the test that didn't exist in the Wikipedia article before, and I have added whatever information I could find from the same test, with citation to said test.Posix memalign (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is someone continually posting 2.9 as the 0-60 for the LM? The only reference is an online car forum, so hardly a reliable reference IMO. Autocar may have got the LM for 0-100-0 in 11.5sec by they reporting having terrible trouble getting it off the line without wheel spin. I seem to recal it was just under 4sec 0-60. Also, there is mention of the gearing being the same as the standard car. I thought it had lower gear ratios but could be mistaken on that point.

If you are talking about supercars.net then that website is not a forum, it has a forum too, but it is primarily a car specification reference database/list with various additional features. But what exactly is your point? Are you saying you have better sources with different data? Then by all means, edit the section and add your superior reference(s), please. If you don't have any other or better sources, then stop complaining, having a referenced figure is better than not having anything! The gearing is the same for the standard F1 and the LM as per supercars.net, if you _know_ anything I don't about this car, then please enlighten me, I don't care what you THINK is right or not. Posix memalign (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, calm down! I didn't realise your authority on this matter cannot be challanged :o) I stand corrected that supercars.net is not just a forum, but online database too. So, yes it is a source of data, but that doesn't make it a reliable one. Either way, I can see us not making progress on this one, so will leave it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.72.161.14 (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This person is correct. CAR Magazine tested the LM in December 1999. They recorded 3.9 to 60 MPH, 6.7 to 100 MPH, and 11.5 for 0-100-0. The first two times were part of the 11.5 second run. The authors noted that the car was extremely difficult to launch for lack of traction. In my recollection, the LM also has shorter gear ratios and a different gearbox, much higher drag, and a top speed around 220 MPH, but the last has never been tested by a magazine. McLaren quote 225 MPH. Alexdi (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You are obviously not suggesting that we change a properly cited fact into what you simply believe to be true? So what exactly is then your point? Find a citation for it with credibility that beats the current one and it can replace it, if not, then there is no point in even bringing it up, again.

I have never seen numbers that suggest the LM has different gearing than the standard F1, but I have seen numerous numbers that suggest they are identical, where are your sources for this difference?

"The authors noted that the car was extremely difficult to launch for lack of traction" -- here I assume your point is that the drivers simply were worthless, and/or that the tires and/or tarmac was in anything but optimal conditions? It seems pretty unfair that the LM would be that much SLOWER than the normal F1 given that the LM has identical gearing more power and less weight? Even if it is true that someone, at some point, DID test the LM to have such poor performance, what does it prove? Does it prove that under more optimal conditions it is impossible for the car to go faster? In fact, if this is exact: "The authors noted that the car was extremely difficult to launch for lack of traction" then that implies something was wrong with the traction, i.e. bad tires, too cold, slippery or whatever.

A top speed "around" 220 MPH? Have you even read the article? It clearly already states the LM has a top speed of 225.

In short, without being lenient: Your recollection is worthless unless you can cite it from a credible source; and no.Posix memalign (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You need to take a step back. Belligerence is unproductive. There has been only one performance test of the LM. I gave the title of the magazine and the appropriate issue, which is sufficient to cite it. You may see the cover here:

http://i.ebayimg.com/23/!BcgVZoQ!mk~$(KGrHqIH-DgEquSdBq5vBK0yJ)V-wg~~_12.JPG

The existing citations point to Supercars.net, which did not test the car and is not authoritative. The 2.9 figure is a misquote, as should be obvious from the correctly quoted 0-100 time. The original car took 3.1 seconds to go from 60 to 100. If the LM reached 60 in 2.9 seconds, it would then have taken 3.8 seconds to go from 60 to 100. The LM would not have slower in-gear acceleration than the base car. While it's probably capable of reaching 60 in 2.9, that number has never been measured.

Insofar as gearing, the LM may or may not have the same ratios. It has a unique GTR-spec gearbox with straight-cut teeth. The GTR did not use the same ratios for every track. Given the LM's higher drag and 8500 RPM redline, McLaren probably did equip it with shorter gears. The Driving Ambition book does not specifically say this, but the presumption is logical. I don't take a stand either way, but the line suggesting that they have identical gearing must cite to a legitimate source.

Per the comments about unfairness: This is an encyclopedia. What a car "should" do is irrelevant. You're welcome to include an inline justification for what you perceive as poor performance, but you cannot fabricate figures. Alexdi (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not attempt arguing that what a car should and should not do is viable in using as the momentum behind a fact, nor do I attempt to fabricate figures; I am attempting to argue the likeliness between which of the two opposing sources of data being the correct one.

I hold the possibility open for that Supercars.net, Top-Supercars, etc. are incorrect in one or more performance figures for the McLaren F1 LM; as these websites are not always accurate, to put it lightly. However, I find it extremely unlikely that the LM has never tested to be at least as fast as the standard F1 in the 0-60 exercise. Even if the LM would have shorter gearing -- which mentioned websites claim it does not -- it is extremely unlikely the LM does not do 0-60 MPH on the first gear alone, the LM would have to be geared ridiculously short to not even reach 60 MPH on the first gear; thus, assuming ceteris paribus and taking into account that the LM machine is superior in almost all relevant regards as compared to the standard F1, ergo the LM should reach a 0-60 MPH performance figure at least as good as the standard F1.

If anything is incorrect in the current data it seems likely to be the 0-100 MPH figure, either that or the LM has simply never been tested to perform better. You attempt to argue that by comparing the (supposedly incorrect) 0-60 MPH time with the (supposedly incorrect) 0-100 MPH time you get an unreasonably large difference between the two; this makes some intuitive sense, although the two times cannot be compared directly, the 0-60 MPH run might have been one with a good launch and little wheel spin, whereas the 0-100 MPH might have been not so successful, also the 0-100 MPH includes at least one gear change, something the 0-60 MPH does not. Either way, it seems just as unlikely that the LM cannot do 0-60 MPH better than 3.9 when consensus is that the standard F1 does 3.2 in the same exercise; as compared with the likeliness it can do 0-60 MPH in 2.9 seconds but needs 6.7 seconds to reach 100 MPH -- when the standard F1 can do the latter exercise in 6.3 seconds; perhaps this is due to a difference in gearing after all, which puts the LM in an indisposition in this particular exercise?

I now conclude my speculation on these issues and move on to my comments in regard to changing the figures.

The sets of numbers are mutually exclusive and I don't see any reason the figures from the Car magazine are any more likely nor any more accurate than the current source which seems to be the only numbers you will find when searching for this kind of information. Thus I opt to simply keep the current numbers. I don't see why an old magazine issue is any more credible or likely to not contain faulty numbers than numbers which have been listed in several online 'supercar' databases and not changed for many years.

Although if the consensus turns out to be that this should still be changed, then it needs to be a little more accurate than merely stating "Car magazine", the citation needs at least issue number, year, issue title and page number(s) which correspond with the exact pages in the magazine the figures are presented as per Wikipedia:Citing sources.Posix memalign (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a source that physically tested the car or points to a source that did, any figures not from Car Magazine are fabricated. Here's another source that references Car with the same figures I gave above:

http://www.autozine.org/classic/mclaren.htm

Car does not list an issue number, and I'm not about to buy the issue to verify the page number. You have enough information to cite it. If you choose not to, I'll update the article myself. Consensus is irrelevant on this point; the burden to support your assertions is yours. Alexdi (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After some additional consideration I will concur, I suggest referencing both the website you suggested as well as the Car magazine.Posix memalign (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to recent reverts citing a 96-page coffee-table book as an authoritative source, here's the only test, ever, of the McLaren F1 LM: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/112_0004_2000_mclaren_f1_supercar/viewall.html The LM may well be, and almost certainly is, faster than the original car. However, this test did not show it. The quoted numbers, 3.9 and 6.7, are authoritative. Please do not revert this again. Alexdi (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ounce/Gram conversion

In this article it states 16 g (0.8 ounce) , as 1 ounce is around 28 grams the article needs fixing. As I am not sure whether it has 16g or 0.8 ounces of gold I won't edit the article. --Dognosh (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism and protection

I'm tired of seeing unregistered morons consistently vandalize it. It is an offense to expect people to waste their time correcting damage due to vandalism when it could EASILY be fixed with a trivial protection, I'm not going to waste my time anymore with it.

Unregistered users almost NEVER contribute anything at all to this article, and it is almost always unregistered users who vandalize it.

This is the last time I ever edit this article until it is protected, and I suggest everyone else who waste their time with such nonsense to do the same.

Posix memalign (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! What a burst of registered editor snobbery! Unregistered editors are allowed to edit Wikipedia. Get over it. "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose."109.155.184.250 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Move article

It would be better to move this article to "McLaren F1 (Roadcar)" and have "McLaren F1" redirected to McLaren Racing. Speedy Question Mark (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Mclaren replica section

I've added a section about a replica that was built for a fraction of the original's cost and the news made the headlines of several notable online and offline papers. I got my additions reverted for being not notable. I think that the man who created the replica wanted to make a point. Are there any suggestions to help improve the notability of the section? Asaifm (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

BMW engine

The BMW engine used in the F1 was not specifically developed for this car. BMW had intended to have an "M" version of their large 8-Series coupé and developed a new engine for the intended M8. The engine was basically made up from two M3 six cylinder engines, having very similar cylinder head construction and very similar basic dimensions for a cylinder bank. As far as I remember, the engine block is thin walled cast iron and is not made from aluminium. There even were running prototypes of the M8 inside the BMW Motorsport company, having a very aggressively styled exterior. A friend of mine worked at BMW at that time and he brought one of these prototype M8s home over the weekend several times - a very interestingly fast car, easily faster than 200 mph on the autobahn. :-) When the car was fully developed the decision was made to pull the plug on that project because the economic and social climate in Germany at that time did not support the launch of such a fast car. So BMW was left with a surplus engine and was very happy when Gordon Murray asked them for an engine exactly like the one they already had on shelf. In the end, the engine found a second home in the F1 after some McLaren specific development work was done on it. For example, Gordon Murray insisted that the engine deliverately should not start immediately after hitting the starter button, but the starter motor should crank it over a couple of times before it fired up so the driver would get the impression of a wild animal getting awake. Very interesting feature... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.172.12 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reorganised production

I remember an article published by CAR magazine in late 1994 or early 1995.
They reported that after having produced around twenty cars McLaren found that they did not make any money on them.
Therefore the production of the car was analysed and reorganised. The result was that some parts originally developed and manufactured specifically for the F1 were replaced by standard parts freely available from car industry suppliers, some parts were manufactured in a different way (being milled from solid instead of cast or forged - or just the other way round) and the production processes were greatly simplified and streamlined. Together this brought down production cost by around 50,000 Pound Sterling, making the car a financially profitable operatoin for McLaren at last.

Does anybody have any information on this? Did these things become reality or was this just hot air because production ended shortly afterwards anyway?

It also is a bit strange that the fact is not mentioned that the F1's racer versions were not originally planned and came into being only because the street car did not sell in anywhere like the numbers McLaren had hoped for. As they desperately needed to sell some more cars to recoup their development cost they created the racers. This whole thing must have been a financial nightmare for McLaren... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.46.162.88 (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Gordon Murray's interview to Evo about philosophy behind the F1 and other supercars

[copyvio by anon editor redacted]

I've read a subsequent interview with Gordon Murray in which he at least partially recants his views on the Veyron once he'd actually driven one. He was also rather rude about the Merc SLR. And some of the journos who raved about the F1 when they first drove it have also changed their tunes; common adjectives include "terrifying", while the brakes come in for a bit of stick. Mr Larrington (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Survivors

The article opens by saying that 106 were made. I can think of at least two well-publicised (non-fatal) disasters involving F1s. I'm not asking for a list of owners (that was dealt with above), but is there an authoritative figure for the number of cars that remain? One appears to have suffered an engine fire in Santa Rosa in 2009, but was repaired, and Rowan Atkinson has crashed his F1 twice, and again the car was repaired and put back on the road. Atkinson's most recent accident was quite major and so presumably McLaren has a large stock of spare parts. I wonder if they have enough to build a new car? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretty early in its career Ron Dennis was demonstrating the car's ability to the great and the good of Formula 1 at Suzuka when the inevitable happened. A gleeful Gerhard Berger ran halfway round the circuit to make sure that those who hadn"t witnessed the accident soon got to see the aftermath, though I don't know the extent of the damage. The story was confirmed by an F1 journalist who witnessed the incident but mysteriously disappeared from his Webby SCIENCE after a day or two. My referring to Mr Dennis as "Grumpy Ron" may or may not have had something to do with it :-) Mr Larrington (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

not using connecting rods

Connecting rods or titanium valves can help distirbute fuel to maximize the performance of the engine Andrew atheer (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

True, they're mentioned in the article, but what's your point? Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

McLaren F1 is a SUPERCAR!!!

Definition: Supercar is a very expensive and high-performance sports car.

Is anyone really arguing that the McLaren is NOT expensive or high-performance?

DocHeuh (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See WP:AUCL. Bahooka (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood. DocHeuh (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on McLaren F1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060909100549/http://www.qv500.com:80/mclarenf1p1.php to http://www.qv500.com/mclarenf1p1.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071015222131/http://fastestlaps.com:80/car4585824039966.html to http://www.fastestlaps.com/car4585824039966.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070213011123/http://www.mclarenautomotive.com:80/cars/f1_track-record.htm to http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/cars/f1_track-record.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Atkinson's F1

If Atkinson sold his F1 for more than $8m then the source that says so needs to be in this page, not another. Also, the source on Atkinsons page is in the Daily Mail, which is not considered reliable, so although probably ok in this respect, attempts should be made to find a better source - and should really be done before insertion. And finally, £8m sterling is not over twice as much as $8m dollars. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Compaq laptops & CA cards

Someone might want to incorporate info from [10]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McLaren F1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151017010504/http://www.sps-automotive.com:80/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html to http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on McLaren F1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522181533/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPcvIB9xYyQ&feature=related to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPcvIB9xYyQ&feature=related

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Your link no longer works. Was it to some sort of propaganda or commercial video for McLaren and the F1? 04:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk)

Camshaft timing...

OR from blocked user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the "Specifications" section (this article is really laid out poorly and a "specifications" section would normally contain actual SPECIFICATIONS instead of descriptions of operation, but there's no way to edit it and argue with existing "sources" or cite personal knowledge and experience so it can just stay crappy as far as I'm concerned) the article states: " hydraulically actuated phasing mechanism which retards the inlet cam relative to the exhaust cam at low revs, which reduces the valve overlap and provides for increased idle stability and increased low-speed torque. At higher rpm the valve overlap is increased by computer control to 42 degrees (compare 25 degrees on the M3)". I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. First of all, the description of the status of camshaft timing is flawed. Camshafts are never timed relative to each other. They're timed relative to the crankshaft, and when one or both have some sort of variable timing capability, the degree the camshafts are advanced or retarded will always be relative to the crankshaft. Valve timing is altered to create different conditions for events during the 4-stroke cycle of the engine, and those four strokes are of the pistons, which are connected to the crankshaft. Retarding camshaft timing means the valve opening and closing event cycles for valves operated by that camshaft will occur "later" in the 4-stroke cycle. Retarding or advancing a camshaft relative to the crankshaft will result in changes in valve overlap, but the timing itself is always described as and measured relative to the crankshaft. There is no need to say "relative to the exhaust camshaft" unless the inlet cam is being driven by the exhaust camshaft. The other error or flaw is in the description of the intake camshaft timing as "retarded" at both low speed and high speed. The statement being made is basically that the camshaft is retarded at low speed for higher torque output and then is retarded more at higher speed. Camshaft timing is never "retarded" or "advanced" at all times when a variable timing system is used or even when a camshaft is statically timed during engine assembly. Camshaft timing adjustments either side of "straight up" may be called "retarded" or "advanced", but when changes are made, those settings become the "static" settings, and manual or automatic adjustments from them will either be "advancing" or "retarding" camshaft timing. The intake cams can't start "retarded" at low speed and then be "retarded more" at high speed. Valve overlap occurs when the exhaust valves and intake valves are open simultaneously around the time of the piston reaching TDC of the exhaust stroke. Having more overlap means the intake valve opens sooner or the exhaust valve closes later or both relative to crankshaft position, and at low speed overlap leads to "pollution" of the intake air charge since high intake manifold vacuum can cause some exhaust gas to back feed up into the intake port and manifold or at least become mixed with the intake air/fuel charge coming into the cylinder. Intake manifold vacuum is also reduced as a result and fuel delivery through a carburetor or injection system is affected and reduced. That phenomenon is what causes the "lope" and inability to idle smoothly or even at all at low engine speeds when "large" camshafts with a lot of lift, duration and valve overlap are used in high-performance engines. At higher engine speeds, the engine will begin to smooth out as intake manifold is reduced and the engine inhales and exhales more air overall and a "tunnel ram" effect begins to occur as dynamic timing of the engine changes. And since valve events are always relative to the crankshaft as I stated above, and because the intake valve events happen AFTER the exhaust events when the engine is in actual operation due to INTAKE only beginning the four-stroke cycle on PAPER and following EXHAUST in actual operation, retarding the intake camshaft timing means it will happen later relative to the crankshaft position and exhaust camshaft operation, which will result in LESS valve overlap because the exhaust valves will be further closed when the intake valves begin to open. That makes sense at low speeds because you want minimal overlap at low speeds. However, because more overlap is desirable at higher speeds, that means the intake events need to happen sooner to create it, and that means intake camshaft timing has to be ADVANCED at higher speeds. It would also be advanced relative to the exhaust camshaft since its timing isn't changing and its driven by the crankshaft. And if the system is in operation changing cam timing as engine speed increases, that means camshaft timing is STATIC at low speed and ADVANCED at high speed. And even if its the other way around, there is still no way for the intake camshaft timing to be RETARDED in both situations as the article now states. The "reliable source" may state otherwise, even if its "McLaren" itself, since a lot of the Wikipedia article is just lifted from a supposedly "official" McLaren webpage, but we need to consider that McLaren wasn't able to design its own engine in the first place, and as such its unreasonable to expect actual mechanical understanding of the systems of the engine it sourced from another manufacturer by the folks writing the publicity materials for the general public, brochures, website, etc. That so much of the article IS content lifted directly from a McLaren site in and of itself is proof that there are many Wikipedia articles that are not "own research" only because "own research" doesn't include doing a web search, consuming existing information on the web and regurgitating it in the form of a Wikipedia article UNLESS the author doesn't provide citations and references leading back to the online resource where anybody can get with a Google search. So, I have no expectation anyone will fix this little problem and no way to "prove" and "cite" and "reference" what I say without it being "own research" or deleted for whatever reason somebody comes up with to not publish facts instead of "cited" and "referenced" falsehoods from European "manufacturers" like McLaren, but at least I'm on the record with the facts and those that disagree or are disappointed won't have the pleasure of reverting me.05:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk)

McLaren F1 a "production car"?

OR from blocked user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given that the car uses a BMW engine and it was "selected" after several attempts to buy engines from or develop engines with Japanese manufacturers went nowhere, and it has a transmission of unspecified manufacture (the article says "developed by Weismann") and various private individuals are mentioned as having a role in its development, is it accurate to call the F1 a "production car"? I ask because many "experts" want to deny "production car" status or labeling for similar vehicles. The Hennessey Venom GT comes immediately to mind, and its at best called a "tuner car" by those "experts" because it uses a relatively small portion of a Lotus chassis, a General Motors crate engine as the basis of its powerplant and also an "aftermarket" transmission. And it wasn't really until it successfully challenged and beat the "stock" Bugatti Veyron and a subsequent high-performance version of the Veyron for the "world speed record" that suddenly "production car" precluded mixing and matching parts from different manufacturers. Oddly enough, the Bugatti Veyron uses Volkswagen narrow-angle" V-type engine technology originally developed by Volkswagen and used in its VR-6 engines, and Bugatti is owned by Volkswagen Group. So clearly there were multiple manufacturers involved in designing, developing and building Veyrons, as well. In fact, its virtually impossible for a modern vehicle to be a 100% in-house effort and still meet the supposed production volume "requirements" that are ALSO said to be a factor in determining "production car" status. Not even Henry Ford was able to manufacture the Model T entirely "in house", and it's kind of pathetic when people start drawing lines and manufacturing definitions specifically to protect national or regional pride and profits by arbitrarily including and excluding vehicles with higher performance in the same "encyclopedia" that ignores similar or identical situations in other circumstances.04:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC) Assuming good faith, (despite the IP currently being blocked for personal attacks and making legal threats,) but the article Production vehicle seems to corroborate the rather obvious fact that the F1 is a production vehicle. It even specifically mentions the Veyron, and says "Guinness were also reported in some sources as saying that at least 50 identical vehicles were needed to be made to constitute a production car." "Production vehicle" refers to the method of construction - as in production line - not that all parts and equipment has to be sourced from a single manufacturer. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)