The end ?

Yes. These cars are an extension of the proprietor's personality.

It's why Enzo's cars had charisma and soul

Ron Dennis on the other hand... wouldn't make it onto my dinner guest list

 

Well, I think McLaren are the closest cars to a Ferrari in Britain, so Ron Dennis isn't wrong. Neither Aston Martin, nor Lotus have ever managed to match a Ferrari, as much as they tried. And I rejoyce that in Britain we can produce cars like that.

As for saying that Ferraris have a "soul" where other cars don't, I see that you still subscribe to the Ferrari myth.

Ferrari nowadays aren't built by the unit by a small bunch of Italian artists who hammer their voluptuous aluminium body with their fists, nor do they have exclusive engines assembled by hands by craftmen from parts machined on site. That was in the 50s and 60s. Now Ferrari has production lines, CNC machining, outside part suppliers, and their cars are designed using computer technology. Almost 10,000 Ferrari come out of Maranello each year. So, where is the exclusivity?

Ferrari wasn't an engineer, but a salesman. He baulked at progress, was against the rear engine, delayed disc brakes on his cars, wanted to keep rigid rear axle, didn't believe in modern suspension, and mostly built his reputation by being the only one to produce V12 engines when others have given up (Packard, Delage), or hadn't adopted them (Jaguar, Asston Martin, Lamborghini, etc...).

Well, you can look back at that with misty eyes and still buy the myth, if you want, but the fact is that the bubble has burst long time ago, and that Ferrari now has lost most of its shine, being overtaken by new car makers, or new models.

Where Ferrari was unique, now Lamborghini, Porsche, Porsche, Bugatti and else (including McLaren) are serious competitors.
I wouldn't put Ferrari above most of these cars, and many people wouldn't either.
The "soul" is mostly an empty word. It's pure BS .
Now, if you think you have a "relationship" with a car, you lost me ...

If you really want a hand-crafted Italian car, try a Manzzati (or is ir Mazzanti?).

 

To me they have much in common.

Two self-made men, obsessed by motor racing and sport cars, dictatorial, autocratic and cantankerous.
Just their age and country of origin are different.

And I still don't know what people call "soul".

Can you define that for me ?

 

No!..... By it's very definition, "soul" is indefinable.....

But, a "buddy" escaped a car-pool violation by telling the cop "but, I'm not alone officer, the soul of Enzo rides with me."

Fortunately (for him ) the cop smiled, checked out the car, and said "have a nice day" prior to sending him on his way with a warning not to do it agian.

I just can't see that happening with "but Ron's with me!".......


Cheers,
Ian

 

+1.

There is no law saying Ferrari are the only ones that can race in F1 and make cool cars too!
Pete

 

I appreciate the passion for Ferrari here, but that also results in willful overlooking of actual facts. Ferrari design information obtained during the 2007 season would not have made any difference during the 2007 season - if used, it would have been the 2008 McLaren car that benefited. The FIA reviewed McLaren's 2008 design and car extensively to ensure that didn't happen - you might recall that McLaren was forced to change a brake balance mechanism that had too much resemblance to the Ferrari 2007 brake balance system.

As for cheating during 2007 - also recall that Ferrari was using an illegal hinged floor when they won Australia 2007. They weren't prosecuted, but the FIA forced all of Ferrari, Williams, and Toyota to redesign their floors to eliminate the flexing hinges before the next race. McLaren actually didn't cheat on their car at the races during 2007!

Your last statement is a bit nonsensical - no team, especially not McLaren, won titles 2008-14 after cheating and paying $100MM in fines.

It's worth remembering that McLaren road car production didn't begin with the 12C - their previous road car, the F1 from the mid-1990s, is legendary, and considered the ultimate supercar from that era. They actually did out-Ferrari with the F1 road car, and current values reflect the extremely high regard for the F1. Even more incredibly, despite not being designed with competition use in mind at all, McLaren produced a LM production-based racing version of the F1 and went out and won Le Mans outright.

Extremely impressive road car for which I have a lot of respect.

 

I can't wait to see when McLaren-Honda turn around.

Their rate of progress at every race this season is staggeringly impressive compared to their rivals. Their start point was just way, way too low.

Extraordinary results almost always involve extraordinary risks. Play it safe and yes, you can be mediocre at best, but I like the all-or-nothing approach McLaren-Honda have taken this season.

It's painful to watch any big moniker like Ferrari or McLaren or Mercedes stuck in mid-field and backmarkers the last few seasons and star drivers like Schumacher and Alonso back there, but look at where Ferrari is today? Look at where Mercedes is today?

Who woulda thunk it back then? I have faith McLaren-Honda will rise to competition eventually like Mercedes and Ferrari.

Just a question of when.

 

+1

Exactly. McLaren road cars may not have 70 years of history behind them but they have already established the reputation of the company as a top manufacturer.

And where did Mercedes turned to when it wanted to have its own supercar, the SLR?
McLaren, that's where!

Although I think that collaboration marked the divorce between the 2 companies.

 

I didn't suggest anything to justify the scandal of 2007. I merely pointed out that McLaren outscored all other teams on the track until their points were removed by the FIA as punishment. Your implication that McLaren has lost the plot entirely since 1998 ignored that they were competing at the front of the field through the 2000s.

I find it amusing to see how people justify which of the two F1 championships is important, depending on what point they are trying to make. The manufacturers love the constructors championship - most fans don't give a damn about it, and focus on the drivers championship.

That said, I don't really want to re-engage anyone over the 2007 scandal, I am a Ferrari fan but not a blinkered and blinded one. I will not comment further on your topic.

Regards,
Gordon

 

F1 need to ban turbo engines to survive

 

+1

Buddy Guy had soul.
James Brown had soul.
Frank Sinatra had soul...

that extra "thing' is impossible to define, yet resonates so powerfully

 

So your point is...???

- Why McLaren is making road cars?
- Why not? Also, making some money never hurts.

Back to topic, McLaren will survive, they´re too big to fall. But I think that they´re in serious risk of becoming the next Williams if they don´t put it together soon and find some sponsors. Also, with Mercedes and Ferrari not available for obvious reasons and with Renault´s future uncertain, their only option is Honda.

 

I miss the McLaren v Ferrari days. To me that is the pinnacle if Formula 1.

 

Agree.

Chalstrad,
To ignore WDC's, when judging a team, is ridiculous because to win a WDC you have to have one of the best cars at your service, so McLaren have been close to as competitive as Ferrari since 2009.
Pete

 

WCC in 1998 or WDC 2008, McLaren appears to be on the edge. They don't have a big sponsor (why is that exactly?) and the sales of their road cars are likely under capacity, perhaps even under forecast.

Hopefully they can get their mojo back because McLaren is a cool company, even if Ron Dennis appears to be a sour puss.

-F

 

Here are 2014 premiums handed by Bernie, which reflects how important the team is to the sport and helps them being competitive. My question is will McLaren be able to keep their 34 mills premium whenever their current agreement runs out? If I were Bernie I would give that money to Williams.

 

Can you explain how Ron Dennis is "obsessed" with being the British Ferrari?

Do you mean that because he launched a road car company, that affected the F1 team?
Both are run independently from each other, I would have thought.

For myself, I think the F1 team declined when Windmarsh took it over, whilst Ron Dennis took a back seat to concentrate on road cars for a while.

The divorce from Mercedes (once a shareholder) also had some effect, one presume, and not only on the engine supply side.

There are similarities between Williams and McLaren; both were associated with a car manufacturer that tried to take them over at some point (BMW and Mercedes), only to be turned down. Then the relation went sour.

 

That poor bastard, Withmarsh, always takes the blame but the Ron Dennis of the 90s and the 00s was not the Ron Dennis of the 80s either.

I think you´re right in that all their success since the fall of their dream team of the 80s was dependant on Mercedes´ cash and horsepower. Now that they´re gone they need to find another partner. Will Honda fit those shoes or will be another Peugeot? Time will tell.

 

Witmarsh was given a job and he failed at it, and now has been removed. Yes the top man is ultimately responsible but Ron's mistake was to hire and have faith in him. This happens in every business and Ron has IMO done nothing wrong. He gave him a chance, he failed and has been removed.

What McLaren need is another Barnard ...
Pete

 

Just to be clear, the only reason that Whitmarsh became Team Principal in the first place is that part of the FIA agreement in 2008 to not ban McLaren outright from F1 included a requirement that Ron Dennis step down from running the F1 team. Mosley had a personal hate for Dennis that was unparalleled.

Dennis didn't step down voluntarily, the excuse that he was going to focus on the road car business was just that (an excuse). McLaren was still going to proceed with the new road car division, but the original intent was not for Dennis to step out of F1 to lead it.

 

Really?, did not know this and have never heard this before.
Pete

 

I think that you are correct here.
Dennis became the scapegoat and was told to step down from being team principal as a punishment, on top of the $100M fine imposed on the team.

To this day, I find both penalties increabibly harsh. Obviously, it was an attempt to cruch McLaren for good. A lesser team would have gone down.

 

Buddy Guy HAS soul