Was the McLaren F1 ever taken around the Top Gear track?

[James3shin]

I'm curious to see how it stands up to more modern cars.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

No, I don't believe that ever occurred. I too would be curious to see what it could do.

 

[BudAshes]

I seem to remember them doing it and it dominating pretty hard.

*nm i think they just drag raced it. I know there was a review on the old top gear.

 

[gorobei]

there was a comparison of the mclaren and the enzo by jezza. f1 spanked the ferrari in acceleration , brake, and top speed. dont remember how it did on the full track or the curves.

 

[vshah]

a lot would depend on whether or not they used newer/better tires.

 

[punjabiplaya]

a lot would depend on whether or not they used newer/better tires.

Well hopefully they would. The people who have one boxed away aren't going to let Top Gear put it around their track.

I really wish that the 959 and f40 would have gotten a lap in. I'm pretty interested in seeing how the F1 does too.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Well hopefully they would. The people who have one boxed away aren't going to let Top Gear put it around their track.

I wouldn't assume that. Yes, they're really scarce cars (if memory serves there are less than 90 in the wild), but there are a fair number of car nuts who buy cars like this not to hoard them and buff them with cloth diapers, but rather to use them (a la Nick Mason). I would think if the producers of TG put the word out that they wanted to put an F1 around the track, someone would volunteer one, if only so they could show the video to their buddies and brag.

 

[thescreensavers]

the new car is slower then the old F1 most probably, thats why you never see Mclaren making a direct comparison.

But the MP4-12C is built with all that heavy safety stuff the F1 did not need to be built for.

Anyhow, I would own the F1 any day handsdown.

All the reviews say the same thing that the MP4-12C does not have a "feel" to it and its not so exciting and it looks like a generic super car.

Still a fast car, but I bet the STIG was annoyed of the nannys interfering with him being himself.

 

[punjabiplaya]

I wouldn't assume that. Yes, they're really scarce cars (if memory serves there are less than 90 in the wild), but there are a fair number of car nuts who buy cars like this not to hoard them and buff them with cloth diapers, but rather to use them (a la Nick Mason). I would think if the producers of TG put the word out that they wanted to put an F1 around the track, someone would volunteer one, if only so they could show the video to their buddies and brag.

yeah, that's what I was saying. Those guys will have new tires on their car because they drive them. Someone who has one boxed away wouldn't have had new tires put on it because it's sitting inside an office building or whatever.

 

[thescreensavers]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ABIpHXiOdM

 

[IcePickFreak]

I suppose it's just he era I grew up in, but when I hear the term 'supercar' the F1 is always the first thing that I visualize in my mind.

 

[vshah]

I suppose it's just he era I grew up in, but when I hear the term 'supercar' the F1 is always the first thing that I visualize in my mind.

having it in need for speed II helped

 

[Arkaign]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ABIpHXiOdM

hahaa :

"The MP4-12C looks like a bar of soap compared to the F1"

 

[abaez]

Last season episode 2? they had the ferrari 250 gto but said that they couldn't afford the insurance to take it around the track. Maybe the same with the f1.

 

[TheHashmaster]

the closest where gonna get is gran turismo 5, lol

i think the mclaren f1 would destroy most of the cars out there right now. it is one of the most purist expressions of a motor vehicle to ever be produced (large high horsepower mid-mounted motor, very light weight body). it is a purposed built car, with the purpose being, being the ultimate car, in terms of handling, braking, acceleration, and for the time when it came out, it did just that, it was the ultimate car. compared to today, i think it would come out on top of track beasts that we have now, i cant think of any street legal car that would able to take on an f1 (let alone and F1 LM) around a track.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

the closest where gonna get is gran turismo 5, lol

i think the mclaren f1 would destroy most of the cars out there right now. it is one of the most purist expressions of a motor vehicle to ever be produced (large high horsepower mid-mounted motor, very light weight body). it is a purposed built car, with the purpose being, being the ultimate car, in terms of handling, braking, acceleration, and for the time when it came out, it did just that, it was the ultimate car. compared to today, i think it would come out on top of track beasts that we have now, i cant think of any street legal car that would able to take on an f1 (let alone and F1 LM) around a track.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The F1 was known to be a little hairy around the track (627 BHP with no traction/stability control or ABS will do that), and there are any number of cars that are better in power-to-weight (all of which are admittedly insane performers). By way of illustration, in a race between an F1 and a Veyron to 200 MPH, the Veyron will get there quicker than the F1 even if the F1 has a 120-MPH head start. (I love the F1 and don't really like the Veyron, but that is a pretty staggering factoid.)

Looking at the historical list of lap times at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Top_Gear_test_track_Power_Lap_Times, I would expect an F1 to come in in the 1:18s or 1:19s - very impressive but not a serious contender for top position.

 

[datalink7]

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The F1 was known to be a little hairy around the track (627 BHP with no traction/stability control or ABS will do that), and there are any number of cars that are better in power-to-weight (all of which are admittedly insane performers). By way of illustration, in a race between an F1 and a Veyron to 200 MPH, the Veyron will get there quicker than the F1 even if the F1 has a 120-MPH head start.

No, that's a bit of an exaggeration. Look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXqSedWSu2k

They finish at 320 kilometers an hour, or almost 200 miles per hour, and the Veyron is just a little bit ahead. It wouldn't even be close if the F1 started at 120 miles per hour.

 

[thescreensavers]

There is so much speculation on the that TG video its not even funny.

On paper the Veyron should of smoked the F1 in that race the the F1 held in their.

It was hot as well so people are saying the four turbos in the Veyron were not running efficiently until it was moving fast enough too cool properly which is when it passed the Mclaren.

I would still have the F1 hands down.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

No, that's a bit of an exaggeration. Look here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXqSedWSu2k

They finish at 320 kilometers an hour, or almost 200 miles per hour, and the Veyron is just a little bit ahead. It wouldn't even be close if the F1 started at 120 miles per hour.

Much as I love the show and the F1, which is a lot, there is no way that video represents an accurate depiction of a drag race between these two cars. It was shot for drama, not as an accurate representation of a race. The Veyron has almost twice the torque of the F1 and its empirical test data demonstrates that it is massively quicker than the F1, plus launching it is point-and-shoot compared with the much trickier proposition of launching a 627-BHP car with a manual transmission and no electronic driver aids. Obviously a Veyron SS would kick even more ass . . .

 

[datalink7]

Much as I love the show and the F1, which is a lot, there is no way that video represents an accurate depiction of a drag race between these two cars. It was shot for drama, not as an accurate representation of a race. The Veyron has almost twice the torque of the F1 and its empirical test data demonstrates that it is massively quicker than the F1, plus launching it is point-and-shoot compared with the much trickier proposition of launching a 627-BHP car with a manual transmission and no electronic driver aids. Obviously a Veyron SS would kick even more ass . . .

Undoubtedly all you say here is true. However, your proposition that the Mclaren could start at 120mpg and the Veyron would still beat it to 200mph is mostly what I was pointing out as an exaggeration.

Besides the video, I believe the Veyron is ~24 seconds to 200mph and the F1 is ~28 seconds.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Undoubtedly all you say here is true. However, your proposition that the Mclaren could start at 120mpg and the Veyron would still beat it to 200mph is mostly what I was pointing out as an exaggeration.

Besides the video, I believe the Veyron is ~24 seconds to 200mph and the F1 is ~28 seconds.

I had heard that factoid and must have mis-remembered it - apparently the true number is 100 MPH (i.e., the Veyron could theoretically beat the F1 to 200 if it gave the F1 a 100 MPH head start).

 

[HarryLui]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ABIpHXiOdM

On a wet track no less. Come on, there isn't enough traction on a dry track for a 300hp car.

 

[Pariah]

I had heard that factoid and must have mis-remembered it - apparently the true number is 100 MPH (i.e., the Veyron could theoretically beat the F1 to 200 if it gave the F1 a 100 MPH head start).

It isn't true:

"Let’s start by laying a myth to rest. You probably know the story, the one where a Bugatti Veyron gives a McLaren F1 a ten second head start in a drag race and still pips it to 200mph. The way the tale is told, the Veyron heroically claws back the distance between itself and the McLaren until, at 200mph, it pulls level, eyes momentarily lock across the shuddering air space, and then it’s gone, thundering on towards its 253mph top speed. Utter cobblers.

True, an early factory prediction for the Veyron’s 0-200mph time (sub 20 seconds) put it about 10 seconds under that independently recorded for the McLaren. But after 10 seconds the F1 is almost a quarter of a mile down the road and travelling at 130mph. Stupendous as the Veyron’s acceleration is, it won’t have caught the Macca when it hits 200mph. It might well be doing 200mph at the same moment, but it will be doing it in the F1’s mirrors."

http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/238672/nissan_gtr_v_bugatti_veyron.html


Even if it was true, it really wouldn't be as amazing as it sounds at face value. Both cars rocket so quickly to 100MPH (Veyron 5.8s, F1 6.3s), that that part of the race to 200 is practically irrelevant. The F1 was tested at 28seconds to 200, which means it took almost 3 and half times as long to go from 100-200 as it did from 0-100. Same thing with the Veyron, Road & Track tested it at 24.2 seconds to 200, which though quicker than the F1, still took over 3 times as long going from 100-200 than 0-100. If you do the math you will also see that an F1 won't get caught to 200 given a 100MPH head start. F1 100-200: 21.7 seconds, Veyron 0-200 24.2 seconds.

There is so much speculation on the that TG video its not even funny.

Not really sure why. I mean, who knows what TG did to make the race turn out the way it did. It doesn't really matter. There is ample real world test data out there about these 2 cars to leave no doubt that the Veyron should never have been trailing in that race at any point let alone get dusted by the F1 through roughly the first 1/4 mile. If the Veryon wasn't just outright handicapped, the easiest thing to assume is that the Stig is simply a far superior driver to Hammond which is why he won off the line, and then the technical dominance of the Veyron just took over after that and negated the driver advantage as the race progressed.

 

[thescreensavers]

Not really sure why. I mean, who knows what TG did to make the race turn out the way it did. It doesn't really matter. There is ample real world test data out there about these 2 cars to leave no doubt that the Veyron should never have been trailing in that race at any point let alone get dusted by the F1 through roughly the first 1/4 mile. If the Veryon wasn't just outright handicapped, the easiest thing to assume is that the Stig is simply a far superior driver to Hammond which is why he won off the line, and then the technical dominance of the Veyron just took over after that and negated the driver advantage as the race progressed.

The reason why is exactly what you said, the Veyron should have be ahead, but it wasnt. The Veyron has Launch control and you just pull on a paddle or w/e, the mclaren the stig has to use all his expertise to launch it and shift as fast as possible.

It can be simply Hammond short shifted to make the race more interesting.

There really needs to be a proper test between the two. On the track and in a 1/2 mile drag.

 

[TheHashmaster]

That's a bit of an exaggeration. The F1 was known to be a little hairy around the track (627 BHP with no traction/stability control or ABS will do that), and there are any number of cars that are better in power-to-weight (all of which are admittedly insane performers). By way of illustration, in a race between an F1 and a Veyron to 200 MPH, the Veyron will get there quicker than the F1 even if the F1 has a 120-MPH head start. (I love the F1 and don't really like the Veyron, but that is a pretty staggering factoid.)

Looking at the historical list of lap times at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Top_Gear_test_track_Power_Lap_Times, I would expect an F1 to come in in the 1:18s or 1:19s - very impressive but not a serious contender for top position.

i think it would do better than that. pros dont need electronic aids while driving. i could see it braking into the 1:17s. with a skilled enough driver it could probably do better than that.