The McLaren F1... erh... P1 Thread

  • Thread starter deba94
  • 719 comments
  • 74,953 views
Some notes from an Autoblog editor:

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/09/26/mclaren-p1-supercar-paris-walkround/

  • The car is impressively compact – barely bigger than the MP4-12C, but all the comments that were negative about the 12C's design being somewhat basic and derivative should go away with this car.
  • In contrast to most modern supercars that are surprisingly large (e.g. Bugatti Veyron, Lamborghini Aventador), the P1 follows in the footsteps of the legendary McLaren F1, which was a lot smaller than most people realized. The P1 is about the size of a Porsche 911 GT3, suggesting weight should be held in check.
  • Davis notes that the design is "very organic in that almost all of the aero elements you see are designed into the body."
  • Among the car's aero tricks, when the rear wing air brake rises to its 32-degree angle maximum, there are also hidden underbody Gurney flaps that open to level out the car.
  • The car as shown is 97-percent final and will be on delivery near the end of 2013.
  • Remember when we told you the P1 was small? It has the smallest frontal area of any car in its segment, yet it still has over 1,300 pounds of downforce up front at 125 mph (Cd is 0.34).
  • Hot air flow through the two hood nostrils is divided precisely between the door aero vents and the center roof snorkel.
  • The car shown here was photographed in the suspension's "race" stance, which is about 1.2-inches lower than normal. Program Director Paul McKenzie says this suspension is as notworthy as the 12c's solution but is goes"one step beyond."
 
Keef
With the wing retracted, no doubt, but either way that is spectacular for a car with so many exhausts and vents and scoops. Wow!
Click to expand...

Just about every supercar like this is in the .3 to .4 range.

The downforce number is very good though. If it's true though, this car should have 2600-3000 total lbs of downforce at 125 mph. If it comes in around 2500 lbs, it will be incredible. We might see skidpad g above 1.1 where most others max out a 1 - 1.05. Maybe even 1.2, depending on radius. Although 1300 lbs at 125 mph does sound really high for just being at the front. Either a typo or one serious front diffuser.
 
Definitely function over form. I think the Gumpert Apollo & Pagani Huayra have a new companion. Now I await the exhaust note to see how it matches its looks......heaven or hell.
 
I'm sorry, i just don't like the look of it. And to me, its not the successor to the F1. It's just a new car made by McLaren Intl. The F1 was bonkers, with a simple design. If it was a 'spiritual successor' they would've stuck to a simple, not Klingon design. The back looks absolutely hideous. Just look at this and remember, and do what the plates say. I would say, humph, crazy new car, but the fact they are calling it the F1 Successor it what upsets me. That car cannot be followed up. /Rant + Start the hate. Wanted to post my thoughts and I know i'm not alone lol

mclaren_f1.jpg
 
oskierox
I'm sorry, i just don't like the look of it. And to me, its not the successor to the F1. It's just a new car made by McLaren Intl. The F1 was bonkers, with a simple design. If it was a 'spiritual successor' they would've stuck to a simple, not Klingon design. The back looks absolutely hideous. Just look at this and remember, and do what the plates say. I would say, humph, crazy new car, but the fact they are calling it the F1 Successor it what upsets me. That car cannot be followed up. /Rant + Start the hate. Wanted to post my thoughts and I know i'm not alone lol

mclaren_f1.jpg
Click to expand...

What does is matter if its marketed as an F1 successor? Does it ruin the image of the F1?

It doesn't really matter one bit, to me. The relative success failiure of the P1 is not going to taint my image for the F1.

I for one am glad the the philosophies of the F1 are not relegated to the past and can be continued in some way today. Part of the reason the F1 looked like it did, was that it was designed with functionality in mind. Looking at the P1, it appears that goal is just as important. The looks are secondary.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but Mclaren themselves said nothing about this being a successor to the F1. The F1 will always be special, but not giving this car the opportunity to prove itself is just blatantly wrong and ignorant.
 
oskierox
I'm sorry, i just don't like the look of it. And to me, its not the successor to the F1. It's just a new car made by McLaren Intl. The F1 was bonkers, with a simple design. If it was a 'spiritual successor' they would've stuck to a simple, not Klingon design. The back looks absolutely hideous. Just look at this and remember, and do what the plates say. I would say, humph, crazy new car, but the fact they are calling it the F1 Successor it what upsets me. That car cannot be followed up. /Rant + Start the hate. Wanted to post my thoughts and I know i'm not alone lol
Click to expand...

The idea of F1 successor is fastest overall road car.

That was what the F1 was built to do and same with the new car.
 
Stevisiov
Part of the reason the F1 looked like it did, was that it was designed with functionality in mind. Looking at the P1, it appears that goal is just as important. The looks are secondary.
Click to expand...

I have to say again that I disagree. The car screams "for aesthetics".
 
exigeracer
It's meant to be an active air brake, so it does look a little odd at full height/angle.
Click to expand...

I think he means how the endplates are integrated directly into the wing. A box/ring wing can be more efficient that a traditional open tipped wing by naturally using the wing's pressure distribution to combat tip vortex, but I'm not sure it applies here. I can't really see the wing close enough. I'd wager it's another thing for looks.


Edit, yeah it's for visuals.
 
Keef
I guess that's just the way it forms to the body. In the normal wing mode the tips are up in the air and look really dumb.
Click to expand...

By normal wing mode do you mean the wing position in the drawings and at 1:30 in the video? The only purpose for that that I can think of is the wing generating lift to deploy itself automatically. Otherwise it's not helpful.

Also, going back to the downforce number posted before, Motortrend mentions 1300 lbs but they're saying that's total. They also don't have a speed to go with the downforce number.

Looking at the video above, I'm liking the tires on this car. Barely any tread. I don't know about breaking records by 24 seconds, but it should be fast.
 
Exorcet
By normal wing mode do you mean the wing position in the drawings and at 1:30 in the video? The only purpose for that that I can think of is the wing generating lift to deploy itself automatically. Otherwise it's not helpful.
Click to expand...
The top picture is the normal wing mode:

1558187610727087356.jpg


This is what will deploy to create downforce.

This is the airbrake mode:

mclarenp1.jpg


The downforce mode has a much lower angle of attack than the airbrake mode, resulting in a reasonable amount of downforce and way lower drag. It will looks stupid but it's effective. Check this Indy 500 rear wing:

575x459.jpg


It looks like it's tilted the wrong direction but it's not. I can't find a diagram of the airfoil but it appears to have a negative angle of attack. It's cambered so much that it still creates downforce at a negative angle of attack, like any cambered airplane wing still making lift at a negative AOA.

The airbrake mode has a very high angle of attack, so high they had to make it double-layered, which creates tons of downforce but also tons of drag (think upside down 747 flaps). They'll tilt the wing just below stall angle for maximum L/D ratio.
 
Last edited:
Keef
The downforce mode has a small angle of attack and much lower camber than the airbrake mode, resulting in a reasonable amount of downforce and way lower drag. It will looks stupid but it's effective. Check this Indy 500 rear wing:
Click to expand...

The wing camber is adjustable? I must have missed that. I know that wings on cars can be tilted relative to the horizon, mostly because the air approaching the wing is directed downward by the body/cabin, but in the top picture, it looks excessive. I was taking the chord line to be roughly the same as the line separating the top and the bottom of the wing in the drawing. But if that's not true and the chord line is actually at a less shallow angle, then the picture makes sense.



They'll tilt the wing just below stall angle for maximum L/D ratio.
Click to expand...

L/D max isn't usually extremely close to stall angle though, the drag increases with the square of the lift, and when the lift starts to fail drag keeps going up because of separation.
 
Exorcet
The wing camber is adjustable?
Click to expand...
I just edited my post as I'd confused their system with movable flaps. Only the P1's AOA changes.

L/D max isn't usually extremely close to stall angle though, the drag increases with the square of the lift, and when the lift starts to fail drag keeps going up because of separation.
Click to expand...
Right, I suppose L/D max would actually be too efficient for the job at hand. If that is the airbrake setting then surely it must be past that and near stall.

Exorcet
I was taking the chord line to be roughly the same as the line separating the top and the bottom of the wing in the drawing. But if that's not true and the chord line is actually at a less shallow angle, then the picture makes sense.
Click to expand...
The chord is hidden in the drawing because it shows the pointed tips. The chord of the horizontal section looks reasonable in the video, maybe tilted back slightly. We can't see the tips' section either but because they're curved up it looks like they might be contributing some sideways downforce, maybe a centering force for more stability, or to accelerate the flow off the main wing even faster.
 
Exorcet
I have to say again that I disagree. The car screams "for aesthetics".
Click to expand...

I don't think its easy to make the claim of "aesthetics first" at this stage. Even with a good knowledge of aerodynamic systems, the effects of even the small aerodynamic details can be very difficult to predict without the help a wind tunnel or CFD software.

I'm basing my opinion of "function first" on a report of 1300lbs of downforce on the front at 125mph. If that claim is actually correct, then this suggests quite substantial levels of total downforce for a reasonable 0.34Cd. I would argue that "function first" is most certainly correct if the above is true.

I'm sure we will find out the official figures over the next year or so, and we will have our answer for Function Vs. Form.
 
Stevisiov
I don't think its easy to make the claim of "aesthetics first" at this stage. Even with a good knowledge of aerodynamic systems, the effects of even the small aerodynamic details can be very difficult to predict without the help a wind tunnel or CFD software.
Click to expand...

Very true, but compare this car to the MP4-12C for starters. There is no need for the McLaren logos built into the car (front light/intake area and two of the rear ducts), and the rear wing, while very functional, does have some strange features. I'd expect much more significant endplates on a high downforce wing at least.

I can't be certain what the aerodyanmic performance of the car is just by looking, but I do think that saying the look is based on form over function isn't something that can be backed up just yet. Form over function would be the MP4-12C GT3.

I'm basing my opinion of "function first" on a report of 1300lbs of downforce on the front at 125mph. If that claim is actually correct, then this suggests quite substantial levels of total downforce for a reasonable 0.34Cd. I would argue that "function first" is most certainly correct if the above is true.

I'm sure we will find out the official figures over the next year or so, and we will have our answer for Function Vs. Form.
Click to expand...

In the automotive world it's actually common for manufacturers to want form and function from the aerodynamics, because if that doesn't happen, the car might not sell. The 1300 lbs of downforce is quite an achievement, but I'd think most of it is coming from under the car and the rear wing (depending on if it's true that 1300 is front only or total). Take the rear wing out of the equation and you get a .34 CD* which is average, or maybe slightly better than average. The ratio of drag to lift is very good since when you generate underbody downforce of this magnitude, the drag can become noticeable. I also suspect that the large diffusers on this car are vortex driven. However, this McLaren may not be the first car to reach this level of aerodynamic performance. The S7 from 10 years ago made similar claims. It might just be down to this car having a better underbody than most other road cars (and manufacturers have their reasons for not going insane with ground effect) with the top shaped a little to cut drag and a little to look interesting.

EDIT
and niky beat me to it
/EDIT

*Not confirmed to be with wing up or down, but that's a really low CD for a car with a wing like this.
 
It all boils down to something often said in F1. Beautiful cars don't always win races, but race winning cars are often beautiful.

An aerodynamically efficient shape is usually pleasing to the eye. Take away the funky headlights and the tow-hook buck-teeth in the front CF bumper and I doubt many people would have issues with the P1.
 


"Over 600kg of downforce and the experience of being able to drive what is the weight of a teenage elephant sitting on the car."
 

Latest Posts

Back