Supertest - McLaren MP4-12C Weight: 1451 kg 0-100 km/h: 3,4 s 0-160 km/h: 6,6 s 0-200 km/h: 9,8 s Cw: 0,37 (Downforce front/rear: 2 kg/62 kg) Braking 200-0 km/h: 144,2 m 18 m slalom: 72,2 km/h 36 m slalom: 138 km/h 110 m ISO evasive test: 157 km/h Hockenheimring: 1.08,7 min Nürburgring-Nordschleife: 7.28 min Wet handling: 1.38,7 min - Suspension problems on the first day of testing. - Bad ABS-setup. - Huge downforce at the rear - bad Cw has to be a cause of the relatively moderated 0-300 km/h-time. - Braking performance: weak, to be honest, very weak from a supercar with ceramic brakes and semi-slicks. Scans: :t-cheers:
They didn't re-test at Hockenheim? That 1:08.7 was ran in 1 lap completely off the hoof. Interesting that they got those times with what they claim were bad brakes.
From the sound of it, this car is better suited on short circuits that run no more than 1 to 2 mins (QR/TG/Bedford etc...) before its brakes give up and betray you and could possibly force you to crash on 1 lap test with a pro driver behind the wheels :eusa_doh: Sub 7 attempt that ended up with an engine failure
Really, give it up Enzox. The car is fantastic. Just because it doesn't have a stick-shift and a leaky RMS, there's no need to get all upset. :eusa_doh: http://www.mclarenli...hread.php?t=497
*Takes Mr.Ree off Ignore as he's not being a total douche as on other forums* What makes you think Enzox does not think the car is fantastic? His has raised a legitimate issue, confirmed by a racer, and maybe one which you can verify: Is their highly touted hydraulic suspension system banned in that class of racing? More here: MP4-12C handling issues - McLaren Forum at McLaren Life
Lack of will-power eh? Active suspensions are banned full-stop, hydraulic or otherwise, this is the case in GT, F1 and most other race series. I don't know of a single race series that permits them off hand unless you can point one out. The advantages of the McLaren's active system would be somewhat null on most race tracks bar the Nordschleife anyway. The whole point in the system is to provide improved ride and handling over bumpy surfaces. Ride is irrelevant in racing and few race tracks are sufficiently bumpy for it to make a difference. In GT racing, a minimum weight is in place, so the weight saving gleaned by not using an LSD is essentially null and void. Mechanical components are also more reliable than electrical components, a fact any engineer will tell you. If there was a completely de-restricted class, only then would you see what optimum technologies would prevail.
Not at all. It might be only a matter of time before your usual trolling ways causes your banishment, but so long as you are being reasonably civil then I can discuss with you whatever I feel like. First of all, you do not know that all of these tracks are billiard-table smooth. Secondly, the MP4 should be able to take advantage of cutting across curbs that might be dangerous in other cars that can not handle it, particularly during enduros. Secondly, the FIA expressly forbids in F1 the use of active elements in a suspension: "10.2.2 Any powered device which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of the suspension system is forbidden." http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/2B2B158DE64879C7C12578C0004B1DF6/$FILE/2011_F1__TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS_30-06-2011.pdf Could you find a similar clause within the GT3 class technical regulations? Again, refer to Section 10 and do note that the F1 regulations are much more detailed than those for the GT3 class. http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/02B5DD4343A3193BC1257917003C3D67/$FILE/257A%20(11-12)-23.09.2011.pdf A mechanical LSD fixes the location of that weight; perhaps it is in McLaren's best interest to put it somewhere else. A couple inches either way, or slightly lower, could improve the overall balance, but the important thing is that without an LSD, McLaren has that choice.
You're already engaged in 5 separate arguments on 4 separate forums with 5 different people, and yet you blame me. Guibo, trust me, if active suspensions weren't banned everyone would be using them in some guise. You won't see it specifically in the GT3 regs because it's in the overarching regs applicable to all classes. The link you posted is only a single article of the GT3 regs, not the full regs. This implicitly seems to suggest that brake-steer is banned. Does the 458 even use its E-diff in GT racing? Active suspensions were used in DTM back in the '90s but were banned by the FIA because they offered too much superiority. That is likely the same blanket ban that applies to all FIA race series. This is the problem with you Guibo, you always have to try and find the actually words stating what everyone else just knows. Most logical people would conclude that since this technology has been around since the '80s in motorpsort, the fact nobody uses it now, means it's still banned! Logic.
And like you haven't been involved in similar arguments? I'm sure you have. It would be easier to prove if you didn't use so many aliases. I'm not blaming you, but when you are the one who is banned multiple times, while I have not, that says something about you. I'm also not the one calling members here "Nazis" from the safety of another forum. Who am I currently in "argument" on another forum besides germancarforum and nagtroc (where you are the only one arguing against me)? Could you post up the part in the full regs that bans McLaren's system?
I can't find them. You said it is listed in the full regs, meaning you have access to those regs and have seen them with your own eyes. The onus is on you to provide the information here, in this thread. Not me. Why would the FIA list such detailed regs in the F1 document, but not for the GT3 class? The FIA's webpage for GT3 class racing does not seem to list the "full regs," meaning the one they do list might very well be the full regs. http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/FIAGT3EuropeanChampionship.aspx
I'm smart enough to know that's not the full regs and I'm also smart enough to know that if active suspensions were permitted then all the big manufacturers would be using them. You are questioning this very logical observation, so the anus is on you to show the full regs or explain why others aren't already using them, as they did in DTM and F1 before they were banned. GT3 is one of many GT classes, all with slightly different regs.
It's banned from the higher classes: http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/37B122FE16EECD6EC12578A70035EA2F/$FILE/257 _11-12_-03.06.2011.pdf It seems that GT3 would logically comprise all the regs of GT1 & 2 plus additional stipulations for the more restrictive GT3 class. If you notice the GT3 regs are 'Article 257A' of which 'Article 257' is clearly a pre-requisite. The only exception for GT3 is ABS, which is clearly stated as permissible in the GT3 regs but is closely scrutineered and the FIA have the right to re-fit the reference unit to any race car. Thanks for wasting my time and being wrong again.
That doesn't prove anything, other than that GT1/GT2 classes have a different set of rules. You cannot conclude that everything that falls in the GT1/GT2 class also applies to the GT3 class. Why didn't they merely make noted exceptions within the GT1/GT2 document? If 'Article 257A' is merely an addendum to all regs listed in 'Article 257,' then why do they repeat many of the same things? For example: If the GT3 rules are merely an addendum (meaning rules already mentioned in GT1/GT2 apply unless specifically mentioned), why is there the need to repeat this information, and for practically all other articles? The dimensions laid out for location of ballast is the same in both documents, as are the rules regarding safety, seatbelts, headrests, rear-view mirrors, batteries, fuel specification, etc. This repetition indicates that the GT3 rules document should be treated as an all-encompassing, stand-alone document. You haven't proven the McLaren's chassis control system is banned in its class of racing.
Why is there the need for the FIA to be able to change the ABS electronic control unit to the reference unit (see 11.2)? It you're allowed an electronic control systems for everything else (since it isn't specifically mentioned:eye5 then why would they care, since it would be perfectly legal for the ABS electronic control system to also manipulate the aerodynamics, ride height, spring rate, camber, steering, traction control, gearing etc. If you look at 14.2 in the GT1&2 regs and 13.1.1 in the GT3 regs, the only addition is the ABS ECU. 4.2 in GT3 regs - movable ballast is not permitted whilst the car is in motion. If you were to move the suspension via an active system, that would also move any ballast. There are also all these other applicable rules that aren't mentioned in any of them: http://www.fia.com/en-GB/Search/Results.aspx?k=article 253&s=FIA.com You missed all these LOL. http://www.fia.com/sport/Regulations/standregs.html http://www.fia.com/sport/regulations/histappjregs.html Unfortunately I'm not being paid a lawyers salary to look through all these but rest assured it's in there somewhere, otherwise people would, as a minimum be employing a simple DRS-style system on GT cars. Be humble for once and admit you're wrong. If all these things were allowed, don't you find it just marginally odd that nobody is using any of them? You'll find this is also the way legislation works. If it says something in article 2 of the road traffic act for instance, just because it isn't mentioned specifically in article 2A, it doesn't mean it's legal. Don't take my word for it, ask a lawyer. Article XX always has precedence over Article XXA unless XXA specifically states a special case or exception. Why is some stuff repeated? People who write these documents are idiot bureaucrats who have made a profession that is 95% based on the use of Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V. It's possible that there are small changes in these sections and they copied the whole thing to put it in context but frankly I have neither the time nor inclination to look.
One does not need to delve into the minds of the FIA. (Perhaps it's for safety? Perhaps to avoid just the very thing you're talking about: control of all electric systems within a single module which, if it fails, could mean the failure of all other associated systems. Perhaps it's too ensure easier checking of compliance; easier to find in a separate module, rather than having to dig deep inside a control unit that monitors everything else too.) One only needs to see two things: 1) ABS is forbidden in the GT1/GT2 class regulations in the same article that bans active chassis control, and 2) ABS is allowed in GT3 class regulations, with no reference to the GT1/GT2 class regulation (ie, the article listed in the GT1/GT2 class does not apply) Perhaps nobody is using it because, as Phil Bennet put it, it doesn't work. Or would be too costly for other manufacturers to develop and homologate onto cars submitted for FIA scrutineering. This explanation, obviously does not apply to McLaren. So just because you can't find where it is explicitly stated in the FIA regs, you're now just going to call them a bunch of copy & 'idiot bureaucrats, huh? Some of the articles are carried over, but with slightly different wording. Which means it's not a simple copy & paste job. For example, with regard to bonnet and boot openings: Obviously not a copy & paste job. Someone had to read them and conscientiously make modifications to the sentences. The regs are repeated in the GT3 rules, despite your claim that GT3 is not complete and merely an addendum to the "overseeing" GT1/2 rules. So that begs the question: Why didn't they just copy & paste over the rules banning the McLaren's chassis control? It would appear that the answer to the question is: "NO, you cannot find that article in the GT3 regs that bans McLaren's system."
Wait, are you saying they would put the ballast on the suspension arms? That would not only be stupid from an unsprung weight point of view, but would be pretty hard to accomplish considering what else that article says: "Ballast must be secured in the cockpit in the passenger's locationand according to the specifications of Article 253-16 concerning the dimensions and characteristics of the fixations." Tell me, how is the ballast going to move with the suspension if the ballast is located within the cockpit in the passenger's location. Could you show me a picture of McLaren's suspension located within this area? Maybe they aren't mentioned because they don't apply? I'm not sure why you are including Historic Racing class regs here. Nobody is talking about WRC either. But you are wrong about them not mentioning the other regs you listed. 8853/98 is the third one on your page of safety-related rules. Your claim that they are not mentioned is flat out false.
