McLaren Life banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Dread man , truly dread
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Im not making trouble here , its a genuine question .

The Mclaren gets beaten by slower , technologically inferior cars . The reasons are not speed , comfort etc but the x factor .

I seem to be the only one that wishes my 12c was a little bit MORE .

These things , lets call them " intangible reasons " ( thank you 6th ) do you all really not understand them ? Are they really unimportant to you all ?
The things i bore you all with , you know connection , feel , communication and dammit even the e word ; are these really unimportant to you all ?

I am not sure wether you guys dont care , dont care much or just say that because our mclarens do lack those things .

What is it ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
IMO it's not that they are unimportant, it's that they are different for every person. For me there are intangibles that the Mac wins on, such as being in the same family as the greatest supercar ever made (F1), having a carbon chassis (even tho that is actually quite tangible), being less compromised in terms of technological innovation focus, etc.

These are not the same intangibles that certain journalists have, but that is fine with me as long as McLaren does get credit for the tangible performance that they did bring with the 12C.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,123 Posts
I think there's just disagreement about whether they're lacking. There's a lot on here who've driven the majority of the 'junior' super cars and just don't agree that the 12c lacks ... Sure there are some which have different emphasis, and a lot of it it is what you're used to... But ultimately it doesn't actually lack and is better in a lot of tangible ways,., in recent history for example... I don't miss the 458 cos it flatters to deceive how quick it is... I don't miss the gt3 RS despite the fact I think it's probably all the car you need, cos I find the mac more rewarding as I have not been a life long rear engine driver. And I don't miss the GT because despite being just a pair of tyres and a lump of an engine, take it down any road it would now struggle for sure... It always felt big in my opinion... So in my opinion the mac doesn't lack in the intangibles but I do accept that it currently lacks the credibility of 50 years of road car development that the competition can lean on
 

·
Dread man , truly dread
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
IMO it's not that they are unimportant, it's that they are different for every person. For me there are intangibles that the Mac wins on, such as being in the same family as the greatest supercar ever made (F1), having a carbon chassis (even tho that is actually quite tangible), being less compromised in terms of technological innovation focus, etc.

These are not the same intangibles that certain journalists have, but that is fine with me as long as McLaren does get credit for the tangible performance that they did bring with the 12C.
Thank you 6th , it helps and I agree with so much of it .

I think there's just disagreement about whether they're lacking. There's a lot on here who've driven the majority of the 'junior' super cars and just don't agree that the 12c lacks ... Sure there are some which have different emphasis, and a lot of it it is what you're used to... But ultimately it doesn't actually lack and is better in a lot of tangible ways,., in recent history for example... I don't miss the 458 cos it flatters to deceive how quick it is... I don't miss the gt3 RS despite the fact I think it's probably all the car you need, cos I find the mac more rewarding as I have not been a life long rear engine driver. And I don't miss the GT because despite being just a pair of tyres and a lump of an engine, take it down any road it would now struggle for sure... It always felt big in my opinion... So in my opinion the mac doesn't lack in the intangibles but I do accept that it currently lacks the credibility of 50 years of road car development that the competition can lean on
Im not sure about this at all mate . It is lacking in certain things but better at other things ,
I think it does not help to ignore them .
I hope my personal issues are addressed in the mooted GT3 type version .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
Im not making trouble here , its a genuine question .

The Mclaren gets beaten by slower , technologically inferior cars . The reasons are not speed , comfort etc but the x factor .

I seem to be the only one that wishes my 12c was a little bit MORE .

These things , lets call them " intangible reasons " ( thank you 6th ) do you all really not understand them ? Are they really unimportant to you all ?
The things i bore you all with , you know connection , feel , communication and dammit even the e word ; are these really unimportant to you all ?

I am not sure wether you guys dont care , dont care much or just say that because our mclarens do lack those things .

What is it ?
I drove both. Most of the intangibles are very tangible, just lazy press wont bother to think, or has ferrari do it's thinking for it.

For example, wrt "connection to the road," what does that mean? Steering feel? Having an intuition for how the car will behave under varied circumstances? So steering feel goes to Mac. Even by crazy top gear's/clarkson's evaluation. So on to feel for how the car reacts under different circumstances. The fact is, if you do a mph to mph comparison, you know how the mac will behave WAY better than the 458. They even said so in the turns, that the Mac just sliced through the turns with no drama and Hamster was feeling uncertain trying to keep up in the 458.

Here' is another supposed intangible. Shifting feel. Shifting is a big thing, and there is something valid there. But it's hardly intangible. How fast, smooth, well does a car shift after you slap the gear? If you like going slow, the 458 always gives you the gear you ask for, no matter where you are in the rev band. The Mac wont. For example, if you are going under 2000RPM on the mac in 1st, it refuses to give you 2nd gear, even though it can. So that sense of immediacy at slow speed is lost on the driver compared to the 458 that always gives you what you ask. Very fair point. (Of course at higher speeds, I think the Mac shifts about as fast, sometimes faster, always way smoother--but point taken, at slower speeds, the 458 spanks the Mac on giving the driver what they want).

Another fair, but very tangible point, is when you turn the nannies off, without the diff, kicking the ass out on the 458 is easier to control and expect what will happen. True. And since every wonk "journalist" likes to kick the tail out for photo ops, I can see this being in the 458's column. When you write it out, to me, its a stupid factor. If you like to drift, there are way better choices than a 458 or a Mac.

That said, from a SUPER CAR stand point, it's all wacky nonsense. I disagree with the top gear clan that the Mac is the best car, but the 458 is the best supercar. Super cars go fast. The mac does fast better. The 458 does slow, arguably, better per the immediacy of shifting at slow speeds, and drift control above.

Now some legitimate intangibles are aesthetics. I do very much think the 458 is a handsome car. Beautiful. I've come around to liking the Mac more, but that is an intangible, and subjective thing, and a fair point to those that like the 458's looks better. Though the number of photos of the Mac v. the 458 seem to provide empirical evidence that the Mac is where it's at wrt to aesthetics.

So I don' think the factors are genuinely intangible here. I think it's way better for people to call them intangible, because when you voice what they are, you sound like an idiot. Yes, the ferrari feels better drifting, and shifting at low speed; these are qualities I would look for in a nissan or buick. Some like the engine note of the 458 better, and think it looks better. It's worse in every other way. Yet, it wins!

So in that, what we believe makes a super car great is giving someone slow speed shifts immediately, good drift control, good noise, pretty looks, and it can suck by all other performance metrics and be a Super Car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
Thank you 6th , it helps and I agree with so much of it .
Cheers, mate. Here's what it comes down to for me. I definitely want McLaren's cars to be all that they can be and believe that they should try to improve every aspect of the car's performance, tangible and intangible. However, I believe it is essential that class-leading objective performance through technological innovation remains at the top of the design brief, before all others. I do think it is hard to make the perfect car for everyone and tradeoffs always have to be made.

Like your obsession with the CGT, I have followed the development and launch of the 12C religiously, reading every word ever printed, watching every youtube put out during the R&D phase. I read countless times that Chris Goodwin spent hours upon hours in the simulator, calibrating traction control and Brake Steer, so that the car would be faster with the systems on, rather than off. Most other cars I drive on the track don't even have traction control and I enjoy them, too. But I bought into the 12C because of McLaren's technology and the intent of the design to leverage all of those bits and bytes to produce the best objectively performing car they could. That to me is actually an intangible that no other manufacturer possesses in such abundance, which Porsche probably being next nearest for me, actually. So, I didn't buy the 12C for its on the limit adjustability in 2nd gear hairpins, with the systems completely off. If it happened to be better than it is in those situations, I wouldn't turn it down, but it is not the top of list requirement for me, for this purchase. And I think, realistically, the same would apply to most buyers attracted the brand. Not all, but most.
 

·
Dread man , truly dread
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
This about your 10th post on what Mclaren lacks - also believe you have your Mac for sale.

Amazing - when I speak about your beloved Carrera GT you write a page on how great it is - so opinions vary!

You have mentioned LSD numerous times and when I explain why it was left out you miraculously don't respond.

To be fair - I appreciate your knowledge and experiences but to continually berate the brand on a forum dedicated to the Mclaren Life ... it's beyond my comprehension.

Anyone here could have bought a 458 or a CGT instead of a Mclaren - they chose not to ... which seems to irritate you.
I'm afraid you have the wrong end of the stick completely .criticism is just that , criticism .
Berate the brand ? Few of you support the brand like me .
I am selling my 12 c because its rhd and I live in Europe and the middle east now , in a block with an underground car park . I need a lefty , I have no desire to step out of the car and walk to the ticket machine 20 times a day or live always on the wrong side of the road . I'm buying a p1 and my name is down for the gt3 variant of the 12c and the p13 for my wife . What more Can i do ? A tattoo on my forehead?
Anyway 10 posts out of 540 odd isn't so bad is it?

I want mclaren to be perfect , it's as simple as that . Please remember I have stated several times that I drove the 458 and 12 c back to back and bought the 12c , this was not chance .

I did not mean to neglect your post , I go out of my way to respond to all posts , kindly point out the offending post so I may reply appropriately . If it was merely related to brake steer , speed etc might I point out to you that the f1 cars with brake steer had a diff working in conjunction with a slippy diff , not instead of . Regardless it does not address my driving concerns .

How you came to these conclusions is beyond me . Im an enthusiast , I enthuse ( About many brands ) . i dont mince my words , believe me if i was attacking the brand there would be no doubt . The difference is I'm not blind to faults and mclaren are big enough an ugly enough for me to raise a few questions or make my dream 12c on line , surely ?
I merely express my opinions , it would be a pity if this place needed up like the Ferrari forums when everything mclaren touched was gold and we were not allowed to criticise them at all .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
I think as 6th and Mike have said, it depends on what those intangibles are and also what the 12c is being compared to.

For discussion purposes here I will take the 458 given it is the major competitor in the 12c's market segment....Personally I found the 458 far too 'busy' for lack of a better word for my liking with it's super quick steering rack and general feel of the car. At fast road speed, I honestly do not think the 12c lacks anything in feel or driver communication compared to the 458 but merely feels different. This very lack of feeling overly 'busy' is probably why some people seem to consider the 12c as being boring compared to the 458 but was a major reason why I chose the 12c over a 458 and I would hazard a guess that this is at least in part why some owners here have preferred the 12c as well. Redheads/brunettes/blondes.. different things work for different people I suppose! Flat out on track with all electrical gubbins off I accept the open diff of the 12c will work against it to be fair although I personally found the 458 a major handful without electrics but might just be that I lack the ability to drive it properly...:eek:.

Compared to a very highly focused car, I agree that the 12c is going to lack something of the interaction and feel of say a 997 gt3 rs. However the same criticism of the 12c against the rs applies as much if not more so to the 458 (and even the scud). My personal view on this which might not be terribly relevant to this discussion but is one of my favourite rants so I'll stick it in anyway is that the 997 gt3s represent the last of the analogue mechanical feel of high performance sports cars as the 12c/458 are increasingly digital cars where ever more driver inputs are first processed through a digital interface (brake steer, traction control, e diff, abs, torque vectoring etc etc) before being translated to what happens on the road by the car and this process of electronic digitisation of sports cars will only increase (one can blame the GTR for starting this...)

Over the weekend, I was out in the 980 and finally managed to do a back to back comparison with the 12c as for all manner of reasons I had not managed to do so previously.. There is no road car I have ever driven that drives like the gt, and I can only guess that the only 2 that can compare will be the F50 and Mclaren F1. However the 980 really is a race car disguised as a road car and while the mechanical interaction/steering feel and general feeling of being connected to the car is unmatched by anything I have driven short of a radical on track or one of those jp1 palmersport things, I don't necessarily sure it is a fair comparison to compare the 12c in those respects to the gt or possibly even the lightweight track specials like the rs. The 12c was built to be a good all round usable high performance sports car and in that I think Mclaren have succeeded very well indeed (and so has the 458 in it's own way). Driving back home from calcot in the 12c, I have to say it has made me appreciate the 12c even more in some respects.
 

·
Dread man , truly dread
Joined
·
1,183 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Cheers, mate. Here's what it comes down to for me. I definitely want McLaren's cars to be all that they can be and believe that they should try to improve every aspect of the car's performance, tangible and intangible. However, I believe it is essential that class-leading objective performance through technological innovation remains at the top of the design brief, before all others. I do think it is hard to make the perfect car for everyone and tradeoffs always have to be made.

Like your obsession with the CGT, I have followed the development and launch of the 12C religiously, reading every word ever printed, watching every youtube put out during the R&D phase. I read countless times that Chris Goodwin spent hours upon hours in the simulator, calibrating traction control and Brake Steer, so that the car would be faster with the systems on, rather than off. Most other cars I drive on the track don't even have traction control and I enjoy them, too. But I bought into the 12C because of McLaren's technology and the intent of the design to leverage all of those bits and bytes to produce the best objectively performing car they could. That to me is actually an intangible that no other manufacturer possesses in such abundance, which Porsche probably being next nearest for me, actually. So, I didn't buy the 12C for its on the limit adjustability in 2nd gear hairpins, with the systems completely off. If it happened to be better than it is in those situations, I wouldn't turn it down, but it is not the top of list requirement for me, for this purchase. And I think, realistically, the same would apply to most buyers attracted the brand. Not all, but most.
I so much appreciate true enthusiasm , more power to you mate.
We may not appreciate all the same features in the same order of importance but petrol truly flows in our veins .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
How you came to these conclusions is beyond me . Im an enthusiast , I enthuse ( About many brands ) . i dont mince my words , believe me if i was attacking the brand there would be no doubt . The difference is I'm not blind to faults and mclaren are big enough an ugly enough for me to raise a few questions or make my dream 12c on line , surely ?
I very much appreciate this vantage. We cannot just be blindly positive (and I'm in no way suggesting Champ is) to shortcomings in the brand/car. The only way to make things better is to point out those shortcomings so they are addressed. And I really respect that people can like all kinds of brands and cars; it's great to have that diverse background.

That said, I find that in most cases, the "intangibles" argument is a cop-out to come out to a preselected conclusion.

I think ISV points out some very significant differences in "feel" for a different class of cars, i.e., the last of the analogues. And it's a very fair thing to discuss: do we want cars interpreting our inputs? Is this always a bad thing, is it ever a good thing, will such interpretation ever get to the point where the driver will have an intuition for how the car digitally helps them drive better? These are very good questions and topics, and I know where I come out on them.

But to ISV's point, the 458 is very "digital" like the mac, so the delta in intangibles is, IMO, significantly reduced. I think the list in the 458's favor boils down to: (a) immediate low speed shifting on the 458, (b) lack of diff on Mac with nannies off gives advantage to drift control on the 458, (c) subjective differences of opinion on engine note, (d) subjective difference of opinion on aesthetic styling. I think in every other way, the Mac bests the 458.

I'm not sure what other "intangibles" exists; I may well be missing some, but that's all I've noticed in all the driving/reading I've done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
Champ612, with all due respect, I think your read on wtdoom is off. He has been here a long time, for better and for worse. Definitely not shy to play devil's advocate, but who can say that is not healthy. I'm actually quite impressed by this thread as it is a genuine attempt to understand his fellow 12C owners, rather than just criticize the car. We are not all going to agree on what McLaren needs to accomplish, but as long as it is voiced with sincerity - as in the case with this thread - then I think we owe it to each other to be tolerant. Again, all due respect intended, if I'm misunderstanding you Champ612 then I apologize. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,737 Posts
Some thin skin around these parts...

The 12C is not perfect, nor is any car. One size doesn't fit all and believe it or not, tastes change. Why are we debating this? There was a time when people thought a 355 was the ultimate car, or maybe the Diablo or Countach. I certainly used to think so, but now I wouldn't touch any of them with a 10 ft pole.

The 12C definitely lacks something, but so does an Enzo and a CGT, and just about every car under the sun, and many will feel lacking in more and more departments over time as expectations and tastes change. Find a car you love, and I'll find someone who doesn't.

For me it's as simple as this: A more or less brand new McLaren was $200K. End of story. There is no better car for the price, and if you say there is, you're full of shit. Now whether you can afford more or are willing to spend more, well that's another story. It's a fantastic car at it's price point and I think that's why a lot of us have them. If you demand perfection, be prepared to spend a lot more.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
various stuff.....
From the way you are coming across, it seems that in your opinion 12c cannot be improved in any way and no one should criticise any aspect of it. That is quite ridiculous and if you consider wtdoom's posts as 'berating the brand' and 'putting down the 12c' while he has stated many times he thinks very highly of the 12c although it is missing something in the driving experience for him, we are all going to have to become mclaren shills here like the way some behave on ferrari forums in order not to be perceived as being negative to the car/brand.

the 458 is very "digital" like the mac, so the delta in intangibles is, IMO, significantly reduced. I think the list in the 458's favor boils down to: (a) immediate low speed shifting on the 458, (b) lack of diff on Mac with nannies off gives advantage to drift control on the 458, (c) subjective differences of opinion on engine note, (d) subjective difference of opinion on aesthetic styling..
The thing about the comparison against the 458, I do actually understand why some people would consider the overly busy feel that I alluded to as making the 458 the more exciting car to drive, that is simply an aspect of the car's handling that is not for me personally. I do get very amused (as per very recent thread on pistonheads) when the 12c gets criticised for having 'computers doing everything for you' while the 458 seems by and large to escape that. The 2 cars are every bit as computer dependent and while the e diff allows the 458 and scud before to do some amazing things powering the inside or outside wheels as the sensors require, compared to the 997 gt3 I defy anyone to honestly say the 458 does not feel synthetic by comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,523 Posts
LOL, at Doug's post.

What is the 12C lacking? I would say the ability to have a more aggressive sound, similar to a Scuderia / 458 with the valves fully opened, especially on downshifts. As a car to take on twisty mountain or Lake roads, it is pretty much perfect IMO. Nothing could remotely touch Jason and I's 12C's a few weeks ago in Couer d'Alene.

Each person will have their own list of things they feel the 12C is "missing." To put up a post and ask everyone else what is lacking in their opinion is silly. Make your own list, and if the cons outweigh the pro's, sell it, and move onto to something else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
The thing about the comparison against the 458, I do actually understand why some people would consider the overly busy feel that I alluded to as making the 458 the more exciting car to drive, that is simply an aspect of the car's handling that is not for me personally. I do get very amused (as per very recent thread on pistonheads) when the 12c gets criticised for having 'computers doing everything for you' while the 458 seems by and large to escape that. The 2 cars are every bit as computer dependent and while the e diff allows the 458 and scud before to do some amazing things powering the inside or outside wheels as the sensors require, compared to the 997 gt3 I defy anyone to honestly say the 458 does not feel synthetic by comparison.
One of the funnest parts, for me, has been adapting my driving to get the most out of the 12C (within my abilities). With other cars, if you leave the systems on, you're always trying to avoid triggering them because they decrease performance - i.e. when the traction control cuts your power abruptly. With the Mac, however, I find that the car actually wants you to push even more aggressively to actively engage the systems. You can pile into the corner with a little too much speed, wait for the Brake Steer to kick in and then ride the yaw moment perfectly, playing the angle with your wrists. Then, when you've got it pointed, just put your foot right into the throttle and wait for the little tail-out power surge, again increments of the wrists and that beautifully calibrated TC just rocketing you out of the corner. I find the way that the car rotates incredible, almost as if you are sitting in the middle of a tea saucer.

In my experience, the 12C is definitely a car with which you are better off revelling in the electronics and technologies, rather than fighting against them. I think the P1 is going to be the same, in fact to an even larger extent because it has even more advanced tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
One of the funnest parts, for me, has been adapting my driving to get the most out of the 12C (within my abilities). With other cars, if you leave the systems on, you're always trying to avoid triggering them because they decrease performance - i.e. when the traction control cuts your power abruptly. With the Mac, however, I find that the car actually wants you to push even more aggressively to actively engage the systems. You can pile into the corner with a little too much speed, wait for the Brake Steer to kick in and then ride the yaw moment perfectly, playing the angle with your wrists. Then, when you've got it pointed, just put your foot right into the throttle and wait for the little tail-out power surge, again increments of the wrists and that beautifully calibrated TC just rocketing you out of the corner. I find the way that the car rotates incredible, almost as if you are sitting in the middle of a tea saucer.
Triggering brake steer has been an interesting one agreed. Rather counter intuitive in some respects that you start the turn in faster than you initially think you can, begin to understeer but then just keep on going without unwinding the steering lock as one usually would then the brake steer kicks home and the car just rockets through the corner at warp speed.

I do think sometimes that the car might have been better off in some respects with a conventional mechanical slip diff (not electronic) but an added 3rd brake steer pedal a la the 1997/1998 F1 racing cars but again, as my surname is not Hakkinen one has to suspect being able to trigger the brake steer pedal accurately (and safely) through a corner would be well beyond my rather limited driving ability...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,123 Posts
Triggering brake steer has been an interesting one agreed. Rather counter intuitive in some respects that you start the turn in faster than you initially think you can, begin to understeer but then just keep on going without unwinding the steering lock as one usually would then the brake steer kicks home and the car just rockets through the corner at warp speed.

I do think sometimes that the car might have been better off in some respects with a conventional mechanical slip diff (not electronic) but an added 3rd brake steer pedal a la the 1997/1998 F1 racing cars but again, as my surname is not Hakkinen one has to suspect being able to trigger the brake steer pedal accurately (and safely) through a corner would be well beyond my rather limited driving ability...
shaotyng, how do you feel the lsd would change the car? what would it do differently (whether better or worse...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,894 Posts
Triggering brake steer has been an interesting one agreed. Rather counter intuitive in some respects that you start the turn in faster than you initially think you can, begin to understeer but then just keep on going without unwinding the steering lock as one usually would then the brake steer kicks home and the car just rockets through the corner at warp speed.

I do think sometimes that the car might have been better off in some respects with a conventional mechanical slip diff (not electronic) but an added 3rd brake steer pedal a la the 1997/1998 F1 racing cars but again, as my surname is not Hakkinen one has to suspect being able to trigger the brake steer pedal accurately (and safely) through a corner would be well beyond my rather limited driving ability...
You know, I think the Proactive Chassis Control has just as much to do with it. When you are flying down the straight and the wheels are articulating independently, it still feels somewhat supple and that makes it really hard to trust that the roll stiffness is going to be there when you turn in. It really is quite a different sensation than a conventionally suspended car. I think you find the limit of cornering grip a little bit differently in the 12C; instead of inching up to it, you just end up taking a bit of a leap of faith and taking a bigger swing at it. Then when you see how the electronics react, you see how you can lean on them to corner harder. It's very unique, in my experience anyway.

But if you don't get there, you miss out on the systems really adding to the experience. In your example, if you detect that initial understeer and wind out a bit of lock like your instincts tell you, the front just washes out and you have to crawl around the corner. I remember reading once that Alain Prost felt like the active suspension F1 cars didn't like his smooth driving style, that they needed a more aggressive approach to perform at their best. In many ways, I feel the 12C is like that, too.

The caveat is how exactly do you drive like that on public roads? You can't, of course. So this is something that Ferrari has obviously realized and there is a limit to how much they will let technology take away from a lower-speed experience. In effect, they trade off the last tenth of performance for a more lively experience on the road. A perfectly acceptable trade-off that will appeal to some. Not me, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,325 Posts
shaotyng, how do you feel the lsd would change the car? what would it do differently (whether better or worse...)
Just from a purely technical standpoint, I always did think using brake steer as the sole way of replicating the behaviour of a lsd would mean the car simply would have to have some element of computer systems left on for brake steer to do it's job properly and that the feel of the car would quite probably always differ from one with a lsd. The calibration of the input of brake steer is clearly something that Mclaren would have done with the computers set at track mode so I can kind of see what wtdoom means when he says the behaviour of the car is a bit unresolved and inconsistent as it is probably something the car was never really properly setup for with systems off.

I had asked someone from Woking about using the brake steer alone without any kind of lsd when I was down at the factory back in 2010 when they were doing some early viewings/visits and the impression that I got was that they had found brake steer alone was sufficient to produce the performance they wanted so they simply didn't think the added weight of a lsd was necessary and that was that.

The thing I find a bit of a missed opportunity in some respects is... adding a mechanical lsd would have added at most say 30-40kg to the overall weight of the car which for a 1450ish kg fully fueled car really is not that much more particularly given the power. That together with the existing chassis excellence of the car would very probably have extended the 12c's range of abilities to include some of that more consistent feel of mechanical interaction on the limit without computers (which clearly is pretty important to some people, better drivers than me admittedly :eek:!) while still keeping brake steer as something to augment the cornering capability of the car so it would not be something that Mclaren was missing out on technically either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
715 Posts
Interesting topic.

My 2¢ on the brake steer vs lsd...

It seems that the overall effect was achieved via software instead of hardware thereby checking the "add lightness" box. Although I understand the noticeable difference of driving one vs the other, I cannot believe that they would go essentially "backwards" like Gps vs paper maps. Especially Doris for instance. Another example of this is in snowmobiles. Bombardier invented a software "reverse" that adds zero weight to the sled. You push a button and the engine stops at top dead center and restarts instantaneously in reverse. Brilliant. Feels very strange though. Some old school guys hate it. I happen to think its amazing. Same with break steer. Like the reverse that was licensed by every other brand, you may see this as well in this case. Just my take on it.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top