Tweet
Wednesday, 17 August 2011
The King Is Dead, Long Live The King
Yes, sure as night follows day and the leaves of summer blow away in the gusts of autum-...I digress. The biggest driver's car release of 2011 is out of the bag.
The Porsche 911, the world's longest living, most popular sports car has yet again reinvented itself for a new generation. There'll be masses of speculation of the specification to come in all the first drives, and talk of the downsized motors in the Carrerra with inflated power. The main purpose of this blog is to splash the leaked press portraits right down the page and drink in the details of the new 911, and what we reckon to its styling. With tens of variations to come and a wealth of history to live up to, it's important it makes a good impression.
My initial thoughts are these. The front is cleaner than before, but also more gawky, with some Panamera cues it didn't deserve, around the 'eyebrowless' headlights and square chin. The daytime running lights are also way too prominent, they're bad enough dazzling everyone to blindness on the front of every current Audi all hours of the day, but for them to be so shouty and bling when switched off is odd.
The profile is classic 911, but lower and leaner somehow, which is a good thing. Those spindly wheels aren't my cup of tea on this car but Porsche usually have an infinite amount of option designs so that'll be an issue for the configurator to resolve. They must be sporting some serious unsprung weight deductions, you've got to assume.
The rear's sliver-thin lights and less fussy engine cover look smart, but the numberplate housing is slightly too prominent and clumsy (though it's even worse on the US spec square plate version) but then again these are hot off the press pictures, and details like that will be easily overlooked in the passage of time. I like the aggression the shotgun barrel tailpipes hint at as well, a nice parting statement from the car there.
Much more is still to come, but it's good to digest these shots of the definitive sports coupé nice and early, before Frankfurt, and beyond. Just keep the Top Gear 'it's the same as the old one, boring' comments to a minimum. Please.
Tweet
Tweet
Monday, 15 August 2011
Here Today, Gone Tomorrow
The purpose of this discussion is slightly risky, for two reasons. Firstly, I don't know if it's completely a creation of my own imagination, and secondly, if not, has anyone else actually ever noticed it? Time to dive right in.
The phenomenon I'm alluding to, which has long puzzled me, is quite where last-generation models of cars disappear to when the newer version replaces it.
Allow me to explain further. The flame-surfaced E60 BMW 5 Series is one of the most recognisable cars on the roads, thanks to its combination of unabashed styling with typical BeeEm cues, and the fact that like every 5 Series before it, it was the default executive saloon choice, especially among keen drivers. Petrols, turbodiesels, saloons, Tourings, there's oodles of the things around, especially in desirable M Sport trim.
Or at least, there were. Since the new, F10 Five replaced the Bangle model last year, I've become increasingly aware that the number of the old model that I see is dropping off considerably. Despite company fleets and private buyers doubtless likely to graduate to the new 5, I've meanwhile seen very few of them on the road. And yet, the E60 car continues to disappear left, right and centre.
Now this car is not a dinosaur. It's still competitively efficient, practical, and carries many of the toys that transferred to the new car, and for these reasons, it sold handsomely.
So where are they all now? Has massively zealous scrapping kicked in on the quiet? Unlikely. Have all old Fives retired to a far off end of the country I'm nowhere near? I cannot work out where they're all going. And I was just using the 5 Series as an example.
I notice that with many new car launches that the older shape sinks without trace, even if the replacement remains relatively scarce. The current Land Rover Discovery 4 sells reasonably, thus its predecessors have retreated to almost complete obscurity. The sharp looking current Ford Fiesta has consistently been Britain's best selling car since its debut three years ago, but the Mk6 held that crown in its day, yet now I honestly don't see that many around.
Before I go any further, is this really just me? Or do you sometimes notice relatively young cars getting very rare very fast just because they've been superseded, although not significantly bettered?
I remember in 2007, just prior to the release of the E92 V8 M3, that the amount of E46 M3s I seemed to pass day to day was verging on ludicrous. All different colours, numberplates, just loads of the things, seeming to outnumber 320ds. And on the unveiling of the new kid, I thought, with raised eyebrows: "Hmm, £50k for a 3 Series derivative, these'll be very rare, almost like Ferrari spotting. Pity." I thought BMW's sales forecast, in the face of the eco brigade and slightly cold reviews on the handling, were way too optimistic. "There's no way that'll outsell the straight six car..." I concluded, as my eyebrows returned to normal "...especially after how many of those I've seen about..."
Predictably with the benefit of hindsight, I was catastrophically wrong. The V8 car has outsold every other M3 generation by a massive margin, and as likely the last naturally aspirated M car, will surely be sorely missed when it is pensioned off next year in anticipation of a twin or even tri-turbo six pot.
So the E92 M3 was very popular. I see two E92s, both in fabulously punchy white, on my usual dog walk route, outside their doubtless proud owners' houses. I don't always see two Honda Civics, or two Renault Meganes, but I do see two 4 litre M cars, without fail. Odd, that. (N.B. No, my dog walk is not past a BMW dealership nor a stupidly affluent posh end, just normal leafy town streets.)
You can see where this is going. How many E46s do I still see? Put it this way: if I hadn't seen a gorgeous blue-silver CSL yesterday, I couldn't have remembered when one last crossed my path if my life had depended on it. Sure, they're expensive to run and long in the tooth, but they are regarded as one of the M Division's finest achievements, and were a sales goldmine, so I can't understand where they're hiding all of a sudden. Wear, tear and accidents cannot have removed that many from the food chain.
Right. I've gone on for far too long about something I'm aware perhaps only I worry about. But keep a sharp eye yourself. Look out for 'old new cars', like the Mk2 Ford Focus or just-killed Citroen C3. And if they vanish from everyday roads while their successors stay fairly rare, I claim my virtual five pounds for spotting this motoring mystery.
...and breathe.
Tweet
The phenomenon I'm alluding to, which has long puzzled me, is quite where last-generation models of cars disappear to when the newer version replaces it.
Allow me to explain further. The flame-surfaced E60 BMW 5 Series is one of the most recognisable cars on the roads, thanks to its combination of unabashed styling with typical BeeEm cues, and the fact that like every 5 Series before it, it was the default executive saloon choice, especially among keen drivers. Petrols, turbodiesels, saloons, Tourings, there's oodles of the things around, especially in desirable M Sport trim.
Or at least, there were. Since the new, F10 Five replaced the Bangle model last year, I've become increasingly aware that the number of the old model that I see is dropping off considerably. Despite company fleets and private buyers doubtless likely to graduate to the new 5, I've meanwhile seen very few of them on the road. And yet, the E60 car continues to disappear left, right and centre.
So where are they all now? Has massively zealous scrapping kicked in on the quiet? Unlikely. Have all old Fives retired to a far off end of the country I'm nowhere near? I cannot work out where they're all going. And I was just using the 5 Series as an example.
Before I go any further, is this really just me? Or do you sometimes notice relatively young cars getting very rare very fast just because they've been superseded, although not significantly bettered?
I remember in 2007, just prior to the release of the E92 V8 M3, that the amount of E46 M3s I seemed to pass day to day was verging on ludicrous. All different colours, numberplates, just loads of the things, seeming to outnumber 320ds. And on the unveiling of the new kid, I thought, with raised eyebrows: "Hmm, £50k for a 3 Series derivative, these'll be very rare, almost like Ferrari spotting. Pity." I thought BMW's sales forecast, in the face of the eco brigade and slightly cold reviews on the handling, were way too optimistic. "There's no way that'll outsell the straight six car..." I concluded, as my eyebrows returned to normal "...especially after how many of those I've seen about..."
Predictably with the benefit of hindsight, I was catastrophically wrong. The V8 car has outsold every other M3 generation by a massive margin, and as likely the last naturally aspirated M car, will surely be sorely missed when it is pensioned off next year in anticipation of a twin or even tri-turbo six pot.
So the E92 M3 was very popular. I see two E92s, both in fabulously punchy white, on my usual dog walk route, outside their doubtless proud owners' houses. I don't always see two Honda Civics, or two Renault Meganes, but I do see two 4 litre M cars, without fail. Odd, that. (N.B. No, my dog walk is not past a BMW dealership nor a stupidly affluent posh end, just normal leafy town streets.)
Right. I've gone on for far too long about something I'm aware perhaps only I worry about. But keep a sharp eye yourself. Look out for 'old new cars', like the Mk2 Ford Focus or just-killed Citroen C3. And if they vanish from everyday roads while their successors stay fairly rare, I claim my virtual five pounds for spotting this motoring mystery.
...and breathe.
Tweet
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
A New Home For Tyre Roar-ing
Huge thanks to everyone who's stuck with Tyre Roar so far and returned again and again to read my posts - it's much appreciated. To a large extent, it's had the desired effect, as you'll now also be able to come across my automotive musings in an exciting and fresh new online only publication: Gridlock Magazine.
The big launch went up last week and the site is already bursting with news, reviews and abstract bits and bobs from experienced writers and young bloggers and aspiring journalists myself. It's well worth a look, especially if you want to be ahead of the game, and your support for all on Gridlock would be well received, as it has been here.
Tyre Roar isn't going anywhere though; I'll still be on here as much as I can, keeping the blogs going whenever something amuses, confuses, antagonises or amazes me. My sincere gratitude for all the hits so far, look out for OllieInGear on Twitter, on Gridlock Magazine, and on here as well.
Now get over to www.gridlockmagazine.com and see what you reckon.
Tweet
Tyre Roar isn't going anywhere though; I'll still be on here as much as I can, keeping the blogs going whenever something amuses, confuses, antagonises or amazes me. My sincere gratitude for all the hits so far, look out for OllieInGear on Twitter, on Gridlock Magazine, and on here as well.
Now get over to www.gridlockmagazine.com and see what you reckon.
Tweet
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
How to make Top Gear
I, as a fairly serious motoring enthusiast, fall firmly into the former camp. Top Gear makes up exactly half of the car-based shows on British television, the other half being 5th Gear. This is, incidentally, pathetic; cars are as much if not more a part of people's everyday lives as buying houses, decorating, and auctioning your unwanted crap, so why so little coverage? Anyway., as it is we have a maximum of two hours petrolhead airtime a week, so we have a right to expect it to be worthwhile.
What I'm not going to do here, is prattle on about how Top Gear isn't a car show, and is a waste of license fee, or needlessly offensive, etcetera. Those arguments all have their place, and their merit, but they're very predictable and completely subjective; Top Gear really is Marmite television, and whether you find the formula mouth-watering or wretch-inducing, it's so successful, it's here to stay.
What I am going to do is take a sideways look at Top Gear using themes I've just mentioned: Predictable. Formulaic. As someone who's watched the show for years, it's now far too predictable. Have a look at my run through of a typical Top Gear's starting screenplay below, and ask yourself, honestly, if it doesn't ring any bells.
"TONIGHT:
- I wear some SOCKS
- Richard stubs his TOE
- James says 'Oh 'C*ck."
After the adoring applause dies down, Clarkson introduces the first item, usually a supercar track test. Nothing really wrong with that, after all this is Top Gear, and what brings the viewers in are the headline cars, not a Which? magazine verdict. It'd be brilliant to have more road tests on Britain's pockmarked and scarred roads, with some good scenery, as Dunsfold is a bit dull week after week, but it is at least an even playing field for all cars.
The stylishly shot film begins with much use of colour and imaging effects, and some Daft Punk.
"WELCOME to the improbably named, very fast, fantastically expensive..."
The car is then tested over the course of three or four minutes. Sadly, the damning verdicts and inspired turn of metaphoric phrase Clarkson used to possess have been replaced by a caricature version of the man, not dissimilar for Harry Enfield's send up.
Cue a launch control demonstration, and as the car accelerates:
- "AAAAARRGGHHHHHHH"
- spleen torn from mountings
- lungs are going to explode
"THEN, there's the WAY IT GOES ROUND CORNERS..."
- like a housefly
- like an axe murderer
- like a F-18 fighter
- enough to tear your face off
"Then there's THE NOISE, which sounds like:"
- a wounded animal
- A thunderstorm
- certain Second World War fighter aircraft
- GOD
No mention of induction noise, exhaust blare, or previously, the explanation for why a car has steering feel or good mid corner balance. Just shouting. Sound familiar?
The ride is usually best summed up not with words such as 'informative, uncomfortable, communicative, or exemplary, but rather:
- I could run over a painted line/insect/rodent and tell you the colour/breed/its last meal.
- Spine-shattering.
Also, the boot is usually big enough 'For things', and there'll be a smattering of saying either 'Sweet', or 'Jesus' in an odd and unfunny squeaky accent.
Week after week, are these really all that funny? On YouTube, people like Jason Plato, Chris Harris, Jamie Corstophine and Steve Sutcliffe have all proved that being informative and accurate about a car's components, set-up, and performance, comes in no detriment to being entertaining, or watchable.
Enter a competitor, a drag race, and a summing up, comparing the cars not to chalk and cheese, but
- tights and suspenders
- training shoes and brogues
- iPod versus gramophone
- Manchester United versus Sheffield Wednesday
- Usain Bolt versus Anne Widdecombe
Then it's back to the studio for lap times, and the rest of the show, with a celebrity with something to plug doing a slow lap, an improbable homemade challenge, or three-way race across Europe.
You could counter with the 'lap times don't matter' argument, but Top Gear centres its car verdicts on a track test and lap time, and no-one, not even Sir Jeremy of Clarkson, has the right to pluck incorrect figures out of thin air to support their opinion. He and his cohorts have a job to do, and to neglect it is bad research, bad journalism, and ultimately, bad television.
Here's a fairly typical Top Gear track test, flashy, but lacking in substance:
And here's evo's take on exactly the same cars. Less glossy, but so much more satisfying to watch.
And here's proof Clarkson could once marry being entertaining, informative, and sensible with normal cars, while being thoroughly enjoyable to spend your Sunday evening with.
They can do serious items. The Senna tribute was a high point of the past few years, while this series' McLaren MP4-12C test was one of the best track films on the show ever. But because children apparently found it too boring, out comes the puerility. But like all children's entertainment, it's way too easy to see what's coming next. Top Gear should celebrate motoring, not reduce it to pantomine. Here's Clarkson on why his children don't like TG unless caravans are on fire.
Still, the car enthusiasts are small fish in a big pond of television viewers, and the majority find the silly spectacle of Top Gear brilliant as it is.
"...Oh no it isn't...."
Tweet
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Sennasational
Better late than never, here's a Tyre Roar review for what is, with the possible controversial rival of Cars 2, the petrolhead film of the year: Senna.
Firstly, if you haven't seen it, go and see it as soon as possible. If you have, you'll know why. Senna is a great documentary, a wonderful piece of film-making, and it has universal appeal, whether you're a fan of the man, or the sport he competed in, or otherwise.
The problem for people of my generation is that for a large proportion of us, Ayrton Senna da Silva is just a name. We've heard about his wonderful driving, legendary rivalries, and infamous demise, but short of seeking out the evidence on YouTube and Wikipedia, he remains very much a figure in the past. What Senna does is bring his career and legacy right into the present. The simplicity of it is quite beautiful. A chronological run through his Formula One career, with concentration on the more pivotal events within it, interspersed with the voices of those who knew him best; family, team-mates, reporters. None of them are show being interviewed, they simply chime in at the appropriate moment, allowing Ayrton Senna, quite rightly, the lion's share of the audiences' attention.
There's a very human quality to this film, it isn't simply a self-indulgent montage of Senna's greatest overtakes, set to a rousing soundtrack and ringing endorsement from his modern successors, which it could so easily have been. Indeed, I'd estimate in the entire 104 minute running time, there's only about 20-30 minutes of actual racing footage. The majority of the film brings you Senna, the man, not Senna the racer, through home videos, behind the scenes race prep, and rare slices of interview.
Of course, this concentration on Senna as a fellow human being, with a family life and concerns for his countrymen, rather than a yellow-helmeted entity who existed purely in the cockpit of a racing car, accentuates the tragic poignancy of the story. In that, it grants the same viewing experience as a production of Hamlet, or Titanic (bear with the poetic license.) Senna is a film you desperately try to enjoy in its early stages, because anyone familiar with the name will be horribly aware of how the latter part culminates.
This 'climactic' point is dealt with gracefully, by virtue yet again of employing a simple, frill-free chronology of events on the fateful San Marino Grand Prix weekend of April-May 1994. Because the audience has already seen Senna's expertise in safety measures, and how he was proved right in occasions where authorities failed to heed his warnings, the increasing displays of his dissatisfaction with the 1994 Williams Renault FW16 on that fateful weekend, as well as his devastation at the Barrichello and Ratzenburger accidents, make for viewing that's harrowing and compelling in equal measure.
At 'my' screening, as the 'San Marino GP: Imola 1994' subtitle rolled onto the screen, there was a definite mood change in the cinema. There was a palpable sense of people bracing themselves for what they were about to witness. At the point that Roland Ratzenburger is seen joking with his engineers about how ludicrously hard he's pushing the car, the lady next to me began to sob quietly, while there was a collective flinch a few moments later when the footage of his fatal qualifying accident was shown.
One deft touch was to conduct Senna's final lap in a Formula One car, to the moment of the Tamburello impact, purely from on board the car. Having the audience ride along with Senna, and helplessly watch as the accident unfolds, is far more sensitive than endless replays of the crash itself. I've seen the deadly Senna crash several times on various documentaries and racing biographies, and it is one of the most brutal, sickening impacts one could ever witness.
The film continues to impress in the aftermath of the horror, by simply showing what all worldwide television viewers saw as it unfolded live. No "hindsight is a wonderful thing/if only he'd..." commentary, just reverential music and some respite for the audience to absorb and come to terms with what they've just witnessed. It's the gentle, honest, mature treatment of a terrible event which really makes Senna a great film, in my opinion.
Other things I liked? The slightly pantomime villainy of Alain Prost and Jean-Marie Ballestre against the heroic crusade of Senna is well handled and very entertaining, yet the audience doesn't end up hating or blaming either of the men, simply appreciating how their impertinence brought out the best in Senna. Showing Prost solemnly bearing Senna's coffin at his state funeral is an artefact which could have been easily omitted in an effort to smear the Frenchman, but it's refreshingly present.
The montage at Senna's funeral of team-mates, rivals, and family paying their respects to his coffin, interspersed with footage of Ayrton joking and laughing with each of them in happier times was yet another simple yet elegant idea.
The film also creates a wider effect on its audience. The men present at the showing I saw watched the film with a resolute stoicism, as if they understood exactly why Senna had to go out and prove he was the world's greatest driver, and the harm that befell him, and his peers, was an occupational hazard. Female members of the audience, in contrast, seemed to express a maternal instinct, as if wishing they could protect the dashing yet falable young men risking their lives for the glory of victory. If this sounds melodramatic, so be it, but watch Senna with an open minded audience before you judge.
Things that could have been improved upon? Few and far between in my humble opinion, really. At times the racing fans among us could do with more footage of Senna's amazing behind-the-wheel skill, but then that's readily available online; a world champion's family home videos are not. And although shown in the credits, a short segment on the heroism of Senna to stop his car and risk his own life to save Érik Comas at the 1992 Belgian GP would have been a canny move to marry the racing driver/charitable hero sides on Senna's character than run deep through the rest of the film.
Overall, Senna is a wonderful achievement; essential viewing for race fans and newcomers alike. It's also fantastic to know this excellent film has been definitively executed and acclaimed, so all future generations can, over the course of 104 gripping minutes, delve into the Ayrton Senna story.
Tweet
The problem for people of my generation is that for a large proportion of us, Ayrton Senna da Silva is just a name. We've heard about his wonderful driving, legendary rivalries, and infamous demise, but short of seeking out the evidence on YouTube and Wikipedia, he remains very much a figure in the past. What Senna does is bring his career and legacy right into the present. The simplicity of it is quite beautiful. A chronological run through his Formula One career, with concentration on the more pivotal events within it, interspersed with the voices of those who knew him best; family, team-mates, reporters. None of them are show being interviewed, they simply chime in at the appropriate moment, allowing Ayrton Senna, quite rightly, the lion's share of the audiences' attention.
Of course, this concentration on Senna as a fellow human being, with a family life and concerns for his countrymen, rather than a yellow-helmeted entity who existed purely in the cockpit of a racing car, accentuates the tragic poignancy of the story. In that, it grants the same viewing experience as a production of Hamlet, or Titanic (bear with the poetic license.) Senna is a film you desperately try to enjoy in its early stages, because anyone familiar with the name will be horribly aware of how the latter part culminates.
This 'climactic' point is dealt with gracefully, by virtue yet again of employing a simple, frill-free chronology of events on the fateful San Marino Grand Prix weekend of April-May 1994. Because the audience has already seen Senna's expertise in safety measures, and how he was proved right in occasions where authorities failed to heed his warnings, the increasing displays of his dissatisfaction with the 1994 Williams Renault FW16 on that fateful weekend, as well as his devastation at the Barrichello and Ratzenburger accidents, make for viewing that's harrowing and compelling in equal measure.
At 'my' screening, as the 'San Marino GP: Imola 1994' subtitle rolled onto the screen, there was a definite mood change in the cinema. There was a palpable sense of people bracing themselves for what they were about to witness. At the point that Roland Ratzenburger is seen joking with his engineers about how ludicrously hard he's pushing the car, the lady next to me began to sob quietly, while there was a collective flinch a few moments later when the footage of his fatal qualifying accident was shown.
One deft touch was to conduct Senna's final lap in a Formula One car, to the moment of the Tamburello impact, purely from on board the car. Having the audience ride along with Senna, and helplessly watch as the accident unfolds, is far more sensitive than endless replays of the crash itself. I've seen the deadly Senna crash several times on various documentaries and racing biographies, and it is one of the most brutal, sickening impacts one could ever witness.
The film continues to impress in the aftermath of the horror, by simply showing what all worldwide television viewers saw as it unfolded live. No "hindsight is a wonderful thing/if only he'd..." commentary, just reverential music and some respite for the audience to absorb and come to terms with what they've just witnessed. It's the gentle, honest, mature treatment of a terrible event which really makes Senna a great film, in my opinion.
Other things I liked? The slightly pantomime villainy of Alain Prost and Jean-Marie Ballestre against the heroic crusade of Senna is well handled and very entertaining, yet the audience doesn't end up hating or blaming either of the men, simply appreciating how their impertinence brought out the best in Senna. Showing Prost solemnly bearing Senna's coffin at his state funeral is an artefact which could have been easily omitted in an effort to smear the Frenchman, but it's refreshingly present.
The montage at Senna's funeral of team-mates, rivals, and family paying their respects to his coffin, interspersed with footage of Ayrton joking and laughing with each of them in happier times was yet another simple yet elegant idea.
The film also creates a wider effect on its audience. The men present at the showing I saw watched the film with a resolute stoicism, as if they understood exactly why Senna had to go out and prove he was the world's greatest driver, and the harm that befell him, and his peers, was an occupational hazard. Female members of the audience, in contrast, seemed to express a maternal instinct, as if wishing they could protect the dashing yet falable young men risking their lives for the glory of victory. If this sounds melodramatic, so be it, but watch Senna with an open minded audience before you judge.
Things that could have been improved upon? Few and far between in my humble opinion, really. At times the racing fans among us could do with more footage of Senna's amazing behind-the-wheel skill, but then that's readily available online; a world champion's family home videos are not. And although shown in the credits, a short segment on the heroism of Senna to stop his car and risk his own life to save Érik Comas at the 1992 Belgian GP would have been a canny move to marry the racing driver/charitable hero sides on Senna's character than run deep through the rest of the film.
Overall, Senna is a wonderful achievement; essential viewing for race fans and newcomers alike. It's also fantastic to know this excellent film has been definitively executed and acclaimed, so all future generations can, over the course of 104 gripping minutes, delve into the Ayrton Senna story.
Tweet
Friday, 8 July 2011
Woking Class Hero
I've been waiting to write this one for some time. Reactions to the biggest, most important, most influential sports car test of the decade.
The dust has settled now on the majority of group tests in UK magazines featuring the McLaren MP4-12C. The general consensus, as played out in Car, Evo, Autocar, Top Gear (magazine) et cetera all arrive at uncomfortably similar conclusions: that the McLaren MP4-12C is an unengaging super sports car, and therefore, by sidestepping its very raison d'etre, is a disappointment. Moreover, it loses to its arch enemy and main rival: the Ferrari 458 Italia. Let the post mortem begin. (I'll try to keep the Latin and French to a minimum now, apologies.)
Firstly, there's the infinitely contentious and thoroughly subjective business of the styling, which I will largely ignore, as most magazine testers promised to do also. Granted, the McLaren is not as dramatic, or as beautiful, or as memorable, as the 458, inside or (more importantly) out. But it may age more gracefully, just as the McLaren F1 looks far fresher a similarly elderly Ferrari, like the 512 TR. Time will tell if McLaren cannily played the long game aesthetically, but I couldn't help thinking, as I digested the musings of Britain's finest motoring journalists in the aforementioned tests, that the relatively plain styling, versus the more extrovert, esoteric, and downright sexy Italian, didn't get the machine from Woking off to a flyer in any of their perceptions, subconsciously or otherwise.
The central hub, for me, of why the 12C was second-bested in its hour of reckoning, was summed up best by Henry Catchpole of Evo, who concluded:
"It seems to do up to five-tenths pace brilliantly and we've found that it does ten-tenths pace round a track phenomenally well, but at the moment I'm not sure if it's capable of being really satisfying in that crucial seven- to eight-tenths where so much fast road driving is done. So it'd be fantastic on the long boring journey to a European circuit cruising all over the horrible Belgian motorways with all the serenity of an A8. And you know that with the push of a button it could drive straight out of the pitlane at Spa and nail the braking point into Les Coombes, but it seems they've completely missed the middle ground."
It's that last clause that seals the McLaren's lacklustre fate. In trying to create an all-conquering car, the talent of the 12C was stretched to such an extent that it wears thin in the most crucial area, the usable, playtime area, when the driver wants to engage with the road and process of driving, and therefore the car itself.
At that point the driver isn't thinking about how the car looks from the outside, the comparative heritage of its badge, or any of the other factors that might put of an armchair pundit. But according to the best hacks around, the MP4-12C is another car whose absolutism, its sheer competence, renders it an ultimately incomplete device, because although it performs the functions of a sports car better than any other on the planet, it fails to garnish them with involvement, and de facto (sorry) enjoyment.
You might be thinking, at this point, that I've got no right to comment on the car like this as I'm not an experienced road tester, and I haven't driven either car. I've not even seen a 458 in the metal, though I have studied a 12C at McLaren's new Hyde Park showroom, where it did look miles better than in any pictures I've come across.
It's a fair criticism, since my sources are basically other people's perceptions of the car, translated into a digestible magazine format. What I'm trying to do is just study and appreciate where these verdicts have arisen from, and I reckon I've nailed it down. The McLaren MP4-12C is a victim of its own success, slaughtered by the sum of its parts. In short, it is a device detrimentally ahead of its time.
There are two ways in which a car can be ahead of its time, and two reflections that can emerge from this. The first is a favourable one, where a car's construction and features elevate it above the competition to an untouchable dominance. Some examples?
The Ferrari F40, the first carbon fibre bodied road car. The McLaren F1, the first carbon tub in a road car. The Citroen DS, with its adaptive headlamps and hydro-pneumatic self levelling suspension.
All things not unusual today, some even mainstream. But all these features, the former adapted from racing, the latter from original designs, elevated their respective cars to greatness, both in their own era, and in automotive history.
McLaren, by their own admission, developed the MP4-12C as a direct competitor to the 430 Scuderia. The 458 may have arrived earlier than expected. and have possessed a far greater leap forward over its forbearer than predicted, but the McLaren still has all the right numbers.
The 12C is more powerful, more torquey, lighter, faster to 60, 125, and 186mph, has a higher top speed, shorter stopping distances, lower fuel consumption, and produces less CO2. It is a stunning engineering achievement, giving more than the Ferrari, and using less.
But it's with these higher figures that the McLaren's rich tapestry of talent begins to unravel. The 3.8l, 592bhp V8 outpokes the 562bhp Ferrari, but in being turbocharged, it suffers from the old adages of (incredibly slight, but still perceptible) turbo lag, and a more muted noise than the 458's flat plane crank howl. The 458 may have an active exhaust and electric engine management for which it has been bemoaned for sounding synthetic, but it still blares a more tuneful, more special tone that the softly-spoken Brit.
Meanwhile, it's the chassis that is the game-changer, both for and against the McLaren's favour. If I were to tell you (and this is true) that McLaren bought another performance car with which to compare, challenge and beat with the 12C, you'd immediately be able to predict what sort of experience it would turn out to provide. So did the Woking boys get hold of a Gallardo, or F430? Maybe a GT3RS, or a Lotus Exige?
They actually bought the giant-killing, technological powerhouse that is: the Nissan GT-R. With that in mind, here's the handling side of the coin.
It's the chassis 'advances' that have really set the tongues wagging and pens scribbling. In short, the 12C shuns anti-roll bars and a limited-slip differential, two inefficient 'necessary evils' of chassis construction, in order to forge its own path and create an all conquering, all road machine. And McLaren dideth create it, and world's motoring journalists saw it, and they saw that it was good.
Both systems are beautifully simple principles. Instead of rigid anti roll bars connecting adjacent suspension systems, the 12C is suspended on hydraulic shock absorbers, and when the car's ECU detects roll into a corner, it forces more fluid into the stressed damper to pump the car back up level, to a calculated point, and keep it flat. Flat cornering means faster corning, and therefore faster progress (and lap times.) So when in track mode, the suspension can be 'pretensioned' to a very firm setting, yet unlike stiff dampers on conventional sports cars, the 12C isn't saddled with the same harsh characteristics on the road. The hydraulics actually do make it more compliant.
Other systems, such as the adaptive magnetorheological in Ferraris and Audis, aim to deliver similar 'have your cake and eat it' benefits, but the presences of ARBs and the lack of flexibility in the settings available leave them as a halfway house next to the McLaren, which has a ride to embarrass a purpose-built luxury saloon. Look out for similar systems on all the next generation S Class and 7 Series barges.
So McLaren are way ahead of the game, pats on the back all round? Not according to our journalists. All have noted that in the fraction of a second it takes for a swift turn to be recognised and reacted to by the suspension, there's a small dead phase to the steering, an unnerving lack of feel before the 'wheel weights up and pushes through the curve. Unlike the engine criticisms, this isn't simply a foible you'd work around over time, like turbo lag, its a confidence-denting admission. The 12C's case isn't helped by the fact its sworn enemy, the 458, boasts hyper-sensitized steering, with only two turns lock-to-lock, so instant response is very much the order of the day, like it or not.
The other revelation is more theatrical, and probably less 'relevant', but it contributes to the entertainment a mini-supercar should deliver. The Brake-Steer System, which independently slows the inside rear wheel in a turn to force a tighter line, (just like the XDS differential on a Seat Ibiza Cupra!) doesn't allow for the big oversteer moments and controlled slides that motoring types love. I told you it was a largely irrelevant point.
Can't help feeling though that the McLaren seems to want to get you to your destination as quickly as possible. The Ferrari, with its five-way manettino and flamboyant fandango ways, is more of a willing companion to play in/with.
It's not irresponsible unless you are, but given that turning off the traction control in the McLaren requires a secret button code from the Woking factory, whereas on the Ferrari you simply twist a convenient switch, it's the Ferrari that wins the heart of the inner child.
All of these features do indeed make the McLaren perform better than the Ferrari, but perform seems the wrong word, because it's not really 'performing', it's simply 'doing'. It possesses the same party trick as a Veyron, in that its real quality comes not from the outside of its talent envelope, but how politely it conducts itself at the opposite end, during the mundanities of driving. But who honestly buys a supercar on the basis it will be more co-operative in traffic, and more comfortable when not on maximum attack?
Of course the Veyron has its ridiculous top speed trump card to fall back, whereas the 12C, although a royal flush to the Ferrari's two pairs in terms of numbers, has to succeed as a driver's machine, and purely because of its technological advancements, it doesn't.
Ironically, the very promising MP4-12C GT3 race car, which has an LSD and ARBs to comply with FIA regulations, would arguably prove a better platform for a true Modena beater.
Where next for the 12C? McLaren have reported strong pre-orders, and there'll be new versions to come. A convertible will add drama, at the expense of dynamic focus (perhaps no bad things, for once in a supercar?) and inevitably there'll be a slightly lighter, slightly more powerful version in a few years in the Superleggera/Challenge Stradale vein. I don't expect McLaren to pull any kind of u-turn to the extent of using conventional ARBs and an LSD to really stick it to the triumphant 458 Italia though.
I do feel for McLaren, because to see their brainchild, their baby, beaten up by the same subjective issues in every test must be heartbreaking, after all the investment, time, and effort that's gone into the car. Whether it's anyone's 'fault' is debatable, because although McLaren did lose sight of why we love supercars, they never lost sight of their philosophy for the 12C.
Its attention to detail is exquisite; my favourite snippet is that rather than embossing the 'McLaren' motif onto every component, it was engraved, to minimise added material, and save weight. That's a fabulously intricate idea. But it does betray the idea of how every aspect of its construction and performance has been pre-planned, whereas I get the impression the Ferrari will always surprise its driver. The McLaren is a great deal of finely honed parts working in a unison never seen before. The Ferrari is, well, a Ferrari. It's the greatest sports car on Earth.
Both can be beaten. Taking Evo's test as an example, neither are as demanding as a Noble M600, as theatrical as Mercedes SLS, and both are more impractical than a Porsche 911 Turbo.
There's so much more to say on these two. The ergonomics and titillation of their respective cabins. The track performance. It's interesting that following Chris Harris' infamous Jalopnik blog, there is great suspicion over the dominance of the 458's lap times. Both Ferrari and McLaren used pit crews in all comparisons, the McLaren with Pirelli P Zero Corsa tyres for the headline grabbing 3.1s to 60mph, while the Evo Ferrari was Italian registered, nurturing conspiracies it may have received last minute special factory treatment. Until a customer model is tested, this remains unconstituted rumour.
The irony is that the performance car world is moving to McLaren. It's already very efficient, very usable, very advanced. But it is ahead of its time, and simply, while we can get away with objects like the Ferrari 458 Italia, they'll always come out on top. Now, let the ageing process begin.
Here's a link to the 5th Gear twin test, which plays out many of the things I've explored here. 5th Gear clip.
Tweet
 |
| Never has any car needed butterfly doors more. |
"It seems to do up to five-tenths pace brilliantly and we've found that it does ten-tenths pace round a track phenomenally well, but at the moment I'm not sure if it's capable of being really satisfying in that crucial seven- to eight-tenths where so much fast road driving is done. So it'd be fantastic on the long boring journey to a European circuit cruising all over the horrible Belgian motorways with all the serenity of an A8. And you know that with the push of a button it could drive straight out of the pitlane at Spa and nail the braking point into Les Coombes, but it seems they've completely missed the middle ground."
It's that last clause that seals the McLaren's lacklustre fate. In trying to create an all-conquering car, the talent of the 12C was stretched to such an extent that it wears thin in the most crucial area, the usable, playtime area, when the driver wants to engage with the road and process of driving, and therefore the car itself.
At that point the driver isn't thinking about how the car looks from the outside, the comparative heritage of its badge, or any of the other factors that might put of an armchair pundit. But according to the best hacks around, the MP4-12C is another car whose absolutism, its sheer competence, renders it an ultimately incomplete device, because although it performs the functions of a sports car better than any other on the planet, it fails to garnish them with involvement, and de facto (sorry) enjoyment.
You might be thinking, at this point, that I've got no right to comment on the car like this as I'm not an experienced road tester, and I haven't driven either car. I've not even seen a 458 in the metal, though I have studied a 12C at McLaren's new Hyde Park showroom, where it did look miles better than in any pictures I've come across.It's a fair criticism, since my sources are basically other people's perceptions of the car, translated into a digestible magazine format. What I'm trying to do is just study and appreciate where these verdicts have arisen from, and I reckon I've nailed it down. The McLaren MP4-12C is a victim of its own success, slaughtered by the sum of its parts. In short, it is a device detrimentally ahead of its time.
 |
| There's a lot under the 12C's skin. But it'll struggle to get under yours. |
All things not unusual today, some even mainstream. But all these features, the former adapted from racing, the latter from original designs, elevated their respective cars to greatness, both in their own era, and in automotive history.
McLaren, by their own admission, developed the MP4-12C as a direct competitor to the 430 Scuderia. The 458 may have arrived earlier than expected. and have possessed a far greater leap forward over its forbearer than predicted, but the McLaren still has all the right numbers.
The 12C is more powerful, more torquey, lighter, faster to 60, 125, and 186mph, has a higher top speed, shorter stopping distances, lower fuel consumption, and produces less CO2. It is a stunning engineering achievement, giving more than the Ferrari, and using less.But it's with these higher figures that the McLaren's rich tapestry of talent begins to unravel. The 3.8l, 592bhp V8 outpokes the 562bhp Ferrari, but in being turbocharged, it suffers from the old adages of (incredibly slight, but still perceptible) turbo lag, and a more muted noise than the 458's flat plane crank howl. The 458 may have an active exhaust and electric engine management for which it has been bemoaned for sounding synthetic, but it still blares a more tuneful, more special tone that the softly-spoken Brit.
They actually bought the giant-killing, technological powerhouse that is: the Nissan GT-R. With that in mind, here's the handling side of the coin.It's the chassis 'advances' that have really set the tongues wagging and pens scribbling. In short, the 12C shuns anti-roll bars and a limited-slip differential, two inefficient 'necessary evils' of chassis construction, in order to forge its own path and create an all conquering, all road machine. And McLaren dideth create it, and world's motoring journalists saw it, and they saw that it was good.
Both systems are beautifully simple principles. Instead of rigid anti roll bars connecting adjacent suspension systems, the 12C is suspended on hydraulic shock absorbers, and when the car's ECU detects roll into a corner, it forces more fluid into the stressed damper to pump the car back up level, to a calculated point, and keep it flat. Flat cornering means faster corning, and therefore faster progress (and lap times.) So when in track mode, the suspension can be 'pretensioned' to a very firm setting, yet unlike stiff dampers on conventional sports cars, the 12C isn't saddled with the same harsh characteristics on the road. The hydraulics actually do make it more compliant.
Other systems, such as the adaptive magnetorheological in Ferraris and Audis, aim to deliver similar 'have your cake and eat it' benefits, but the presences of ARBs and the lack of flexibility in the settings available leave them as a halfway house next to the McLaren, which has a ride to embarrass a purpose-built luxury saloon. Look out for similar systems on all the next generation S Class and 7 Series barges.
So McLaren are way ahead of the game, pats on the back all round? Not according to our journalists. All have noted that in the fraction of a second it takes for a swift turn to be recognised and reacted to by the suspension, there's a small dead phase to the steering, an unnerving lack of feel before the 'wheel weights up and pushes through the curve. Unlike the engine criticisms, this isn't simply a foible you'd work around over time, like turbo lag, its a confidence-denting admission. The 12C's case isn't helped by the fact its sworn enemy, the 458, boasts hyper-sensitized steering, with only two turns lock-to-lock, so instant response is very much the order of the day, like it or not.
The other revelation is more theatrical, and probably less 'relevant', but it contributes to the entertainment a mini-supercar should deliver. The Brake-Steer System, which independently slows the inside rear wheel in a turn to force a tighter line, (just like the XDS differential on a Seat Ibiza Cupra!) doesn't allow for the big oversteer moments and controlled slides that motoring types love. I told you it was a largely irrelevant point.
Can't help feeling though that the McLaren seems to want to get you to your destination as quickly as possible. The Ferrari, with its five-way manettino and flamboyant fandango ways, is more of a willing companion to play in/with.It's not irresponsible unless you are, but given that turning off the traction control in the McLaren requires a secret button code from the Woking factory, whereas on the Ferrari you simply twist a convenient switch, it's the Ferrari that wins the heart of the inner child.
All of these features do indeed make the McLaren perform better than the Ferrari, but perform seems the wrong word, because it's not really 'performing', it's simply 'doing'. It possesses the same party trick as a Veyron, in that its real quality comes not from the outside of its talent envelope, but how politely it conducts itself at the opposite end, during the mundanities of driving. But who honestly buys a supercar on the basis it will be more co-operative in traffic, and more comfortable when not on maximum attack?Of course the Veyron has its ridiculous top speed trump card to fall back, whereas the 12C, although a royal flush to the Ferrari's two pairs in terms of numbers, has to succeed as a driver's machine, and purely because of its technological advancements, it doesn't.
Ironically, the very promising MP4-12C GT3 race car, which has an LSD and ARBs to comply with FIA regulations, would arguably prove a better platform for a true Modena beater.Where next for the 12C? McLaren have reported strong pre-orders, and there'll be new versions to come. A convertible will add drama, at the expense of dynamic focus (perhaps no bad things, for once in a supercar?) and inevitably there'll be a slightly lighter, slightly more powerful version in a few years in the Superleggera/Challenge Stradale vein. I don't expect McLaren to pull any kind of u-turn to the extent of using conventional ARBs and an LSD to really stick it to the triumphant 458 Italia though.
Its attention to detail is exquisite; my favourite snippet is that rather than embossing the 'McLaren' motif onto every component, it was engraved, to minimise added material, and save weight. That's a fabulously intricate idea. But it does betray the idea of how every aspect of its construction and performance has been pre-planned, whereas I get the impression the Ferrari will always surprise its driver. The McLaren is a great deal of finely honed parts working in a unison never seen before. The Ferrari is, well, a Ferrari. It's the greatest sports car on Earth.
Both can be beaten. Taking Evo's test as an example, neither are as demanding as a Noble M600, as theatrical as Mercedes SLS, and both are more impractical than a Porsche 911 Turbo.There's so much more to say on these two. The ergonomics and titillation of their respective cabins. The track performance. It's interesting that following Chris Harris' infamous Jalopnik blog, there is great suspicion over the dominance of the 458's lap times. Both Ferrari and McLaren used pit crews in all comparisons, the McLaren with Pirelli P Zero Corsa tyres for the headline grabbing 3.1s to 60mph, while the Evo Ferrari was Italian registered, nurturing conspiracies it may have received last minute special factory treatment. Until a customer model is tested, this remains unconstituted rumour.
Both cars also carried obscene amounts of cost options and garnish, something which needs to be addressed The 12C and 458 press cars were well over £200,00 worth, heading for hypercar, Aventador money. There's a very interesting, and somewhat shocking Car Magazine blog here on that very subject: 'How to blow £70k on options'.
Let's not also forget that this is McLaren's first attempt at a series production car, and its first road model since 1994. Given the amount of legislative and technological evolution since then, that McLaren can run the Ferrari so close at all is a triumph for the marque. Despite this, the car itself has been soundly defeated.
Let's not also forget that this is McLaren's first attempt at a series production car, and its first road model since 1994. Given the amount of legislative and technological evolution since then, that McLaren can run the Ferrari so close at all is a triumph for the marque. Despite this, the car itself has been soundly defeated.
The irony is that the performance car world is moving to McLaren. It's already very efficient, very usable, very advanced. But it is ahead of its time, and simply, while we can get away with objects like the Ferrari 458 Italia, they'll always come out on top. Now, let the ageing process begin.
Here's a link to the 5th Gear twin test, which plays out many of the things I've explored here. 5th Gear clip.
I've deliberately written this prior to the Top Gear television review, since I feel that programme no longer does justice to any car featured within it. I'll predict Jeremy Clarkson will, amidst the shouting and metaphor-ing, come to the same conclusion in the 12C as his peers, but it'll be dummed down to a sickening level. It will, importantly however, likely discredit the McLaren to a much wider audience, and if the technical causes of this are not covered properly, it'll be a huge disservice to McLaren. But that's the way of Top Gear these days. McLaren more than anyone else, will be hoping for a refreshing verdict.
Tweet
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Red Is The New Black Series
After all the recent comment on Tyre Roar about hybrids, electric cars, and failing business, it seems ripe for an injection of colour, and brawn. So here, leaked fashionably early, as is par for the course with any new car of recent years, is the upcoming Mercedes C63 AMG Black Series Coupé.
After the brilliant looking, and much lauded CLK Black of 2009, there's been a great deal of hope (and pressure) for Mercedes-Benz to follow it up honourably.
The SL Black sported similarly outrageous flared wheel arches, but was generally regarded as 'too much', in its weight, cost, and brutality, and a retrograde step as far as driving dynamics are concerned.
Of course there's no word yet on what the C63 Black will be like to pedal, but the C63 AMG Coupé has already received good reviews, while AMG has a strong and expanding fan base.
I reckon AMG have really nailed the looks of this one. The standard C Class coupé has been criticised for the clumsy styling around its rear flanks, with a large expanse of uninterrupted panel making the side appear rather bland and spoiling the proportions around the dwarfed rear wheels.
The Black however, with its steroidal blisters, air intakes, and what appear to be 20" forged rims from the SLS, gains the purposeful stance of its CLK lineage, and looks delicious.
My favourite details are the rear arch outlets, which looks like they've come straight from the back of the £300,000 Ferrari 599 GTO.
As a possible last hurrah for the venerable 6.2 litre naturally aspirated V8, the Black will get around 517bhp, up from the 487bhp available on the C63 with AMG Performance Pack. There'll be a small weight saving from those gorgeous bucket seats and some carbon trim, but the DTM-esque bodywork mods mean that the overall drop will only be in the region of 20 kilos.
Arriving next year, hopefully the C63 Black Series will also show BMW the error of their ways in making the M3 GTS a limited production model sporting a ludicrous £100k sticker price. BMW may have been vindicated somewhat by selling out the entire allocation, but for those who view cars as more than speculative profiteering exercises, the M3 GTS was slightly obscene.
Having a price more around £80,00 and existing as a standard production model, rather than a limited run halo special could, and should, mean AMG have a winner on their hands. After the CLS 63 and SLS of late, Mercedes' in-house tuning skunk-works really is on a roll. Certainly, it's starting to embarrass the M Division in Munich, who are desperately seeking petrolhead redemption with the 1M and M5 after the sorry debacles of the X5 M and X6 M.
Leaving the business case aside, the main comfort from these leaked pictures is that the C63 Black Series looks right, inside and out, even in red. A possible modern classic, and a candidate for most desirable car of 2012. You saw it here first.
As a final thought, a big part of this car's draw will be it's normally aspirated growl-and-crackle noise. It's a shame to write a blog on AMGs and not include this most wonderful of their assets, so here's my favourite motoring journo, Chris Harris of evo Magazine, demonstrating some of those 'good reviews' for the C63 Coupé I mentioned earlier. Volume up...
Tweet
The SL Black sported similarly outrageous flared wheel arches, but was generally regarded as 'too much', in its weight, cost, and brutality, and a retrograde step as far as driving dynamics are concerned.
Of course there's no word yet on what the C63 Black will be like to pedal, but the C63 AMG Coupé has already received good reviews, while AMG has a strong and expanding fan base.
I reckon AMG have really nailed the looks of this one. The standard C Class coupé has been criticised for the clumsy styling around its rear flanks, with a large expanse of uninterrupted panel making the side appear rather bland and spoiling the proportions around the dwarfed rear wheels.
My favourite details are the rear arch outlets, which looks like they've come straight from the back of the £300,000 Ferrari 599 GTO.
As a possible last hurrah for the venerable 6.2 litre naturally aspirated V8, the Black will get around 517bhp, up from the 487bhp available on the C63 with AMG Performance Pack. There'll be a small weight saving from those gorgeous bucket seats and some carbon trim, but the DTM-esque bodywork mods mean that the overall drop will only be in the region of 20 kilos.
Having a price more around £80,00 and existing as a standard production model, rather than a limited run halo special could, and should, mean AMG have a winner on their hands. After the CLS 63 and SLS of late, Mercedes' in-house tuning skunk-works really is on a roll. Certainly, it's starting to embarrass the M Division in Munich, who are desperately seeking petrolhead redemption with the 1M and M5 after the sorry debacles of the X5 M and X6 M.
Leaving the business case aside, the main comfort from these leaked pictures is that the C63 Black Series looks right, inside and out, even in red. A possible modern classic, and a candidate for most desirable car of 2012. You saw it here first.
As a final thought, a big part of this car's draw will be it's normally aspirated growl-and-crackle noise. It's a shame to write a blog on AMGs and not include this most wonderful of their assets, so here's my favourite motoring journo, Chris Harris of evo Magazine, demonstrating some of those 'good reviews' for the C63 Coupé I mentioned earlier. Volume up...
Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
