the new Mclaren ........ am i missing some real brakes???!!

i have never seen brakes this small since the year 1998 !!!
what happened??!! those are 19" wheels and 4 pot pistons with puny discs.
They are certainly trying to be special or cheap out on this car, price should be lower than the 458.

http://media1.blackfalconmedia.com/2010/7/1/super/1822983428961321835.jpg

http://www.worldcarfans.com/110071227326/mclaren-mp4-12c-pre-orders-now-up-to-2700/highphotos#2

 

They seem to work though -

quote from Autoexpress

"McLaren says the car will travel from 0-124mph in less than ten seconds, and stop from 124mph in less than five seconds. It will stop from 100mph in 30 metres - or seven car lengths."

That last sentence; wow, just wow!!!

 

It´s a small lightweight car and i think the brakes will do their job very well.

Ok, optic is not sooo nice!

But i´m wondering that McLaren is using an old style two pieces design!

Why didn´t they use a monobloc caliper?

Greetings Christian

 

exactly!! i think they are just saving cost.
local non-official sales is already quoting a price thats lower than a 458. and CC brakes are optional, thank goodness.

 

Acura took a very similar approach with the RSK a few years back. Make it light and match the parts to the weight of the car. I'm certain Mclaren have done thier homework.

 

Form follows function.

 

The 12C offers two choices in the brake department. There are the standard composite steel rotors with 4-piston caliper made by AP Racing, and an optional carbon/ceramic set with 6-piston calipers which are produced by Brembo.

McLaren actually recommend the standard steel brakes for most customers who do not intend to do a lot of heavy track driving with their 12Cs. This is likely due to overall braking feel and better initial bite under colder operating temperatures seen with typical road use. The carbon brakes also add 8kg of unsprung weight over the steel versions.

I believe a correction is needed for those braking stats. Even with deploying the car's airbrake it seems like a stop from 100 mph in 7 car lengths is pretty unfathomable. I'll be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong, but I suspect that stat should be from 100 km/h (which is 62.1 mph) as that seems slightly more believable.

Here are photos of the two different choices of brakes.

>8^)
ER
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Smaller discs+lower weight.
If they do the specified job with no fade after couple laps then why not?

 

Too late to edit my earlier post, but I need to clarify this portion as I got it all wrong thanks to a poorly worded article.

The steel brakes save 2kg per rotor by using a forged aluminum hat in place of a typical cast aluminum one for a total savings of 8kg over similar conventional steel brakes. The steel brakes are also lighter than the optional carbon ones, but that difference is not the 8kg my earlier comment implies. I'll keep looking to see if a real figure for that weight difference has been published yet.

I also found specs for the rotor sizes on the carbon/ceramic brakes. They are 395mm for the front and 380mm in the rear. It says they are larger in diameter than the steel brakes, but I haven't located exact specs for those yet.

While there's more to a braking system than simply rotor size, for comparison sake the carbon brakes fitted to the 458 Italia measure 398mm in the front and 360mm in the rear. In the dry weight stats the McLaren bests the Ferrari by a difference of 176 lbs - 2866 lbs versus 3042lbs respectively, and the McLaren makes use of the airbrake I mentioned before to further reduce stopping distances with drag and also increase the downforce at the rear of the car to allow the rear brakes to be more effective as well.

>8^)
ER
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

You are right. Impossible from 100mph, but possible from 100 km/h. The op quoted the article as saying " and stop from 124mph in less than five seconds". You can get close to the distance required to stop from 124 mph by assuming an average of 62 mph, or 91 feet per second, for the 5 second braking period. (Yes it might brake a little harder at higher speeds because of aero). 92 ft/s x 5s = 460 ft. So the stop from 124 mph takes about 460 ft.

Anyone who thinks McLaren chose the brakes because they were "cheap" doesn't get it. They optimized the brakes for the car based on performance. We have gotten used to seeing cars with brakes, wheels and tires that are too big in diameter because they look cool.

 

comments like the below should be on mclaren's pay roll.

 

another on mclaren's pay roll....
how u know if it fades or not?
u must love the teeny brakes on the elise and exiges too, but lotus is forgivable for charging theirs a lot less than 100k.

 

you truly don't get it... its pretty obvious... take a look at a formula 1 cars brakes and tell me they are inadequet.

I bet you think because computers are not the size of a ball room they aren't any good either...

technology is amazing...

things get smaller... things get more efficient...

next thing you are going to say is that because the engine is smaller it can't make as much hp...


Your comment about him being on mcclarens payroll is way out of line and comes across ignorant.

I wear my ferrari underwear, hat, shirt, key chain and socks just like the rest of us... but this car is going to be a serious competitor... take a look at the californias and the 458s brakes... larger brakes are a thing of the past with ccm2 brakes.

Id educate yourself about the issue before you start throwing stones...

ask yourself... WHY? WHY are they using such small brakes... HOW... are they doing it? Is anyone else doing it? HOW does it perform??? WHAT are the benefits???

 

Those equating rotor size with increased performance as a linear relationship are HORRIBLY misinformed. There are many more factors that determine how well a set of brakes perform: vehicle weight, pad friction, rotor depth, surface area for heat soaking, etc etc; a whole lot more than simply disc diameter. Run some Google searches and read up one a few things - you'll be [un]pleasantly surprised.

 

Educate yourself before making silly comments. If you have no working understanding of how brakes work and perform, ask. Now you're just making a fool of yourself.

 

Let's see, whom should I go with on this one, McLaren Automotive or some guy with 520 posts and no profile?

 

my f cars has giant brakes stock, actually all my cars has brakes bigger and more piston calipers than that stock mclaren brakes. its an obeservation of mine.
and these name calling by u and another is wierd because i dont see me saying someone else is a fool or silly.
mclaren must make great cars, but some are already defending them when they are using inferior brakes than our fcars and giving a bunch of arguments when they never went near one?? must be getting paid or drinking lots of mclaren-aid, but i still get one if they get it cheaper than the 458.
read thru my posts, never arguing with anyone, i would like to get paid if i openly say something is worthwhile when i never seen it too.

 

I can say this. I have more than 500 posts and it means Jack **** ! I am tired seeing this in all sorts of threads. Guys callling out others based on how many posts they have on here or the Always-classy "how many Ferraris do YOU own". It is sickening. You can have 2 posts on here and know more than anyone else on here.
Now that I got this out of my system, I am not taking sides. I can not afford neither a 458 or a McLaren, but I understand how brakes work and that size does not matter (at least for most people on here). But that said, the 458 wins any contest on looks alone. I mean no disrespect to McLaren, but this C12 thing looks like a Lotus Elise modified by a crazy tuner. The F1 had character to go with the performance and was different from anything else out there. The only things this creature inherited, are the doors and the color. I am a huge fan of the McLaren F1, but the new one is just plain.....well......plain. Dull, almost ugly.
The original just came out and spanked everybody. There was not all this talk and BS. This new thing is already making claims and there is all this press and blah, blah, blah. By the time it hits the showroom floors the other companies would probably introduce their next generation models.

 

Pull your head out of the Cavallino's arse mate, you're not doing yourself any favours.

 

You're right. What I said came out wrong and I did not mean it in that way, and I apologize. I simply meant that the OP is a relative unknown in terms of his expertise about cars. He has relatively few posts (in contrast to others on this board who have a well-established degree of technical expertise). Furthermore, he has not bothered to fill out any profile information.

Of course, the snide comments about "McLaren's payroll" don't exactly help his case.

The fact is that a car's brakes only need be as big as is required for them to be effective. Anything more is just a waste of (unsprung) weight. I'm quite certain that McLaren Automotive has the expertise to have come up with the optimum braking for this car (which incidentally I find to be quite stunning).

 

I agree 100% with what you are saying. Well maybe not about the ne McLaren being stunning, but to each their own.
My comment was made in general, not just about this particular case, because I see this more and more often. I have been asked myself silly questions on here, so it just ticked me off. Nothing personal towards you or anyone in particular.

 

The tone/aggressive writing which obviously comes from a biased side is what made me and others reply to you and say words like silly etc...

when you start accusing people of being on McClarens payroll or "drinking McClaren-aid" this is the kind of reaction you get. You started the name calling... you didn't exactly approach this with caution or even ask the questions of "why is mc using such small brakes" you assumed that you knew more than the engineers at Woking who run a very successful Forumla 1 team (which I hate...) And when you profess that you know more than they do... its a little ridiculous... add the payroll comment and Mclaren-aide and now you have stirred somethings up. Your argument of the brakes are smaller and therefore inferior is ridiculous and has no merit. You still haven't acknowledged this. you keep bashing the brand because of an alleged design flaw... but the only flaw is your understanding of how well these brakes work as well and that the size of the brakes isn't the only factor in making sure the car stop well.

 

I don't believe it for a second. That is working out to a deceleration of 133 m/s^2, using simple (v^2 - u^2)/2s = a. Maybe they meant to say seventy car lengths, and there was a transcription error somewhere.

 

The original McLaren F1 was a game changer in terms of performance and packaging, but its looks were not revolutionary. The lines and volumetric shapes were just simple and timeless, with no styling nods to any contemporary trends. Thus, it has withstood the test of time quite well.

The MP12-4c (or whatever it's called) is a far cry from all that, and the rest of the industry has moved forward and possibly overtaken it already. Look at the Italia's packaging and price point and performance. That McLaren takes a lot of justification.

The McLaren's shortcomings are to be expected, as the original project was tended to by a purist. Gordon Murray was not involved with the second one, and there are quite a few additional industrial and legal constraints that the creators had to work with.

 

I wonder how many "wankers" will still order the carbon brakes when the steel is recommended and their only usual advantage of less unsprung weight is actually not true with this car ...

Pete