The £815,000 insurance bill

Had the good fortune to spend some quality time with a pre-production Noble M600, showroom demo Lexus LF-A and a Lamborghini Murciélago SV press car last week. I like to think not many people get the same good fortune so I felt it only right that I should share my experiences.

A lot of people came by to chat to me about these three cars over the few days I was around them. Overwhelmingly, the Lamborghini attracted the most favourable opinions. I think this was chiefly because it was the one in the trio most easily recognisable as a "supercar". The huge carbon fibre rear wing and hexagonal glass engine-bay cover [that wouldn't look out of place on a Revénton] both played their part.

So too the pearlescent orange paintwork the Italians prefer to describe as "Arancio Atlas" where I would use "look-at-me!". Infamous Italian flamboyance was also evident in the name which amounted to, "Lamborghini Murciélago longitudinale posteriore seicentosettanta-quattro superveloce berlinetta". Descriptive? Quite.

In its company, the other two took the role of 'gatecrashers' at the hypercar party as they were criticised for having price tags their badges might not quite manage to carry.

If one were to be as polite as some were - "How much?! Who's gonna pay that for one of them?!"

Another made the astute observation that if they had seen the LF-A on the street and someone told them it was a £50,000 car, they wouldn't have flinched in the slightest.

Oddly enough, at idle, the Lexus was louder than the 'raging bull' and having talked to someone who has driven both in anger, I can reveal, it shouts louder too! The Lamborghini was also much more tame at parking speeds and didn't shoot forward every time you brushed the accelerator pedal in the same way the LF-A did. While attempting a 9-point turn in the LF-A, I also discovered a bewildering control layout that left me wondering whether it was set out that way to remind those who got in the driving seat that while it was a car, it was nothing like other cars they had experienced before.

"Lamborghini - the friendly supercar". You know where you heard it first.

This thread extended to the keys with the key fob for the SV looking like it could have been one from any other car made by VWAG - albeit with a Lamborghini badge skillfully blue-tacked onto it. Not so the naked carbon-fibre Lexus key - presumably to show your mates in the pub what a special car you own without first having to take them and their pints to the car park. The Noble key on the other hand (no pun intended), had been borrowed from a Ford [that I'm certain wasn't the GT] and the immobiliser/central-locking fob was after-market. "Pre-production M600, y'understand?" Left me considering whether they were waiting to show the full production version when they had applied the same chutzpah to it that they had to the switch for the traction control.

Doors? The SV had the trademark scissor-style doors Lamborghinis have had since the Countach and though they "look really cool", they do mean worrying about banging your head at every ingress/egress. On the conventionally opening doors of the LF-A, only the placement of the door-handle was worthy of note; (inside a deep channel that directs air to the C-pillar intake). The Noble's door was special for its interior panel being deliberately left untrimmed to show the exotic material it was fashioned from.

There was carbon-fibre everywhere inside the Noble! The whole centre console stack was made from it and so was the golf-ball gear knob. The rest of the dash probably was too but I can't confirm this as, at the time of viewing, it was hidden under leather. The CFRP was aesthetic garnish in its use on the fascia though not so, in its use in the bodywork - the M600's modest kerb weight in comparison to the LF-A and the SV forming all the justification needed. The Lamborghini's interior was dominated by alcantara held together by yellow stitching whereas the LF-A's interior impressed upon me; "loads of plastic!" "Very high-quality, tactile plastic". "But plastic nonetheless".

The view behind in all three cars was purely conceptual, whereas the view out front in the Noble was the best and served well to emphasise its superior compactness. The Noble had a higher quoted top-speed and so was potentially the fastest of the three in a straight line (slower official 0-60 probably due to requiring a gear-change). This, as well as its lower weight and more advanced under-body aero is probably why it placed so much higher than both the SV and the LF-A on the TopGear power laps board despite costing at least a Range Rover's worth less than the next most expensive, the SV.

At the end of my little episode with this trio though, I would have had the Lexus LF-A.

Only because it was not derivative in the same way the other two were. The Lamborghini was like a modernised, angularised Diablo whereas the M600 was like a Ferrari F40 reboot. I also prefer function-driven aesthetics in a car and while this approach was readily evident in the LF-A and the M600, it was probably the only thing subtle about the styling of the Lamborghini. While I also admired the desire behind it's makers' to deliver to willing punters, an unadulterated driving experience, the M600 would have probably been too much of a handful for someone of my limited ability. Connoiseur's choice if you will.

The Lexus, in contrast, was filled with sort of technology that flatters a driver and their lap times while [and as a result of] keeping them on the black stuff.

I liked the fact that the Lexus redlined at 9,000rpm and that when it did, it sounded not very much unlike the Aston Martin Le Mans prototype car. Quite a good analogue because more than the other two, it represented race high-tech applied to a road car. Easy choice then for a motorsport fanatic.


Click the image below for a table of some interesting stats:

Motorsport can be is exhilarating

I stumbled across a gem whose sparkle I've spent all day today admiring. A 6½-hour documentary which I watched in one sitting; only taking breaks to eat and to visit the loo; it was that compelling!

It was about Tim Schrick and his exploits when he went endurance racing and it was rather wittily called "Team Schrick" because as you might imagine, he didn't do it all on his own. I say "stumbled" because when I came across it, I was actually looking for clips from a German TV show called D Motor, screened on DMAX and presented by Tim Schrick.

It's a show I fell in love with for the technical detail Tim goes into when analysing the behaviour of cars he tests. Unlike some, he has remarkable car control skills and he doesn't get confused if you start talking to him about torque.

In any case, I've watched many motorsport documentaries before, most recently, Truth in 24 about the diesel Audi R1 TDi rennwaggen and its success at Le Mans in 2008. It was a very 'slick' documentary but it was utterly soul-less. I didn't feel anything like the connection I found with the characters in Team Schrick. And I say characters because like any other good 'drama'/"real-life-with-all-the-mundane-bits-taken-out", the individuals involved in the story were all developed to fill 3D[imensions].

In contrast, the biggest persona spanning the 92 minutes of Truth in 24 is Audi AG. Because it was a promo film, there was a desire to bolster Audi's reputation for reliability, and unlike in Team Schrick, the concession to reality that in motorsport, things can and do go wrong could not be [and wasn't] made.

Team Schrick was a true emotional rollercoaster and I fully recommend it to car, motorsport and drama fans alike. The sheer ambition Team Schrick display throughout the programme and enormous desire to succeed really hooks you in.

I think motorsport has a bad habit of presenting itself as various combinations of dour, sterile and aloof (F1 moreso than all the rest). That's what's fresh about Team Schrick; all the turmoil, emotion and passion for the sport is on show. Much unlike you get with Ron Dennis batting on about passion in press releases and press conferences but only rarely displaying any.

It's a must-watch, athough if circuit-racing isn't your thing, put Engineering the World Rally on your list. It's about Petter Sohlberg and the Subaru WRC team's 2007 season and is equally as good!

What's wrong with new TopGear?

So the show-makers finally admit fans think the show is in crisis and that they think it is too. It also seems they are trying very hard to fix it but they don't know what's wrong with the show or what to do to fix it.

Well I too, like the Monk, think I have the solution! Going with the band analogy, I think they would do the equivalent of an "acoustic set".

Everyone on the show keeps batting on about the Bolivia film and how it's the best part of this series and the 'races' and 'challenges' that fans 'loved' from, "back in the day when Top Gear was good". They also seem to love talking about the presenters and their 'on-screen chemistry' and how it's a show about 'three blokes cocking about with cars'.

It's a case of their making a fuss about everything else and forgetting it's a show about cars. It'd be like spending all your time as a band thinking about the onstage show and forgetting the [real] fans are there primarily for the music.

The part of Ep 5 I enjoyed the most was the Noble test because it was about the M600 and nothing else. Cars are interesting enough without exotic locations, 'brilliant cinematography' or contrived plots and staged humour. The clips of Top Gear I watch repeatedly on YouTube are always the 8-10 minute tests where they talk about the cars and nothing else and the best film they've put together in a while was James May's FCX Clarity test.

Nowadays, I enjoy watching clips of Tim Schrick on DMAX D Motor more than I enjoy watching TopGear. The tests are done on a featureless airfield and don't always involve supercars, all speech is in German and I have to read subtitles to follow it, but it's compelling because although there is some humour every so often, 90% of the dialogue is about cars and the joy of driving them.

I understand TG need to cater to those who watch the show for 'entertainment' but this shouldn't be at the expense of those who watch it for the cars. I propose one show in each series devoted to 'power' tests, one each from the presenters. And nothing else!

What price exclusivity?

So the production LF-A's just been shown at Tokyo. Plenty of stats to admire though the one I find most interesting (a sticking point for most); £330,000. And yet Toyota will still lose money on each if R&D costs are factored in.

Now why, I hear you ask, did they artificially limit the production run to 500. When they could have let the market absorb as many as it cared to and in turn, potentially given them back a bit more of the money they invested.

Simple: there are some for whom the very fact the that there'll only ever be 500 will be a selling point.

I asked a friend of mine once what car they guessed I'd have when I was a little bit older and I wasn't a debt-ridden student. Though they didn't name a specific car, they suggested it'd be something a little left-field. I agree with them.

I've always been taken in by the idea of owning a VW Phaeton or a Renault Vel Satis. Cars that were essentially sound propositions but suffered for people feeling they cost more than their badges were worth.

The same prejudice will be a handicap for the LF-A [and the Hyundai Equus], however much they may be statements from their respective manufacturers. From Hyundai that they can make cars every bit as good as BMW and Mercedes, and Lexus, that they can manufacture a car that can comfortably duel Ferraris and Lamborghinis.

I don't think having something could be made more satisfying purely by not many other people having it. Far more smugness-inducing to have spotted a gem that slipped under everyone else's noses.

So I would probably buy the LF-A, if I had the money, but the extra cash I'd fork out would be to demonstrate 'individuality' in my consumerism, though not, unlike some, just to secure 'exclusivity'.

What's in a unit?

I didn't learn very much about Engineering during my 3 years studying it at University but I did learn enough to be quite critical of figures when they are presented to me. I learnt that, how you choose to measure something can have a huge effect on the facts you can back up using said measurements.

McLaren claim that their M838T is the most 'efficient' series-production internal combustion engine because it happens to produce less CO2 per horsepower than any other internal combustion road car engine.

They neglect to mention that there are literally over a thousand other ways to measure the efficiency of an IC engine. No doubt they chose that metric because it paints their M838T in the best light. They could have told us for example, a figure we all understand like its mpg figure.

The scenario reminds me of a few years ago when digital camera manufacturers were in the business of quoting the megapixels their cameras were capable of shooting as if it was the be-all and end-all of camera performance. Compare a photo from a 8.0MP phone camera to an old 3.2MP SLR for example and you can clearly see how megapixels only tell half the story.

I do admire the P11 project as I think you can gather from the post immediately preceeding this one, but I wish McLaren didn't resort to such shady tactics to promote their product. That they quoted statistics we're used to and let us make our own minds up rather than manipulate the facts.

Anyone else noticed they didn't publish a final mass for the MP4-12C but still found time to make a big song and dance about their 'amazingly light' 80kg CFRP tub?

The MP4-12C - A quizmaster's boon

It is not going on sale before 2012 and it is out of reach for most given it'll cost about the same as a 3-bed semi- in 'the North', but the McLaren MP4-12C deserves column space in 2010 for the sheer technological endeavour it embodies.

After the £600,000 F1 of 1992 and the £300,000 SLR that has just ceased production, the new car can almost be said to represent McLaren's descent into the 'mainstream' retailing at around £125-£175,000. Make no mistake though, this British supercar is anything but humdrum. The painstaking approach employed by its designers in creating it, is breathtaking.

                 

Those from outside of the walls of the space-age "Technology Centre" in Woking where McLaren are based, may not have not heard of 'the 5% rule', but it goes thus: The engineers scrutinised every single component that makes up the car, and polished off and trimmed every last bit of weight they possibly could. Then after they finished, they revisited each component and magicked up another 5% reduction in weight .

                 

The 'C' in MP4-12C indicates 'carbon fibre', a material used to make the chassis weigh less than Jonny Wilkinson.  The brakes are not made from carbon like they are in most other supercars because the engineers found a way to make them using steel whilst still saving 8kg. 

Virtually all road cars (and incidentally, most houses) use copper wire in their electronic systems but McLaren used aluminium, yet again because it represents a more weight-conscious approach. This saved 5kg. The structure behind the dash was made from magnesium instead of steel to save another 4kg and to top it all off McLaren built their own engine and gearbox from the ground up when they could just done what most upstarts do and bought a drivetrain off the shelf. All of this to achieve "efficient performance" to put it in their parlance.

                 

I understand I might be beginning to sound somewhat fanatical so to achieve some balance, I think it's worth pointing out where the MP4-12C leaves blots on its copy paper; it looks a bit plain.

Especially next to the Audi R8, Ferrari 458 Italia, Lamborghini Gallardo and Mercedes SLS. That said, the non-controversial looks may mean time treats its better. Its aformentioned predecessor the F1, for example, still looks fresh despite first being presented to the world in 1992.

                 

MP4-12C will be judged on more fronts than just looks though and given the praise lavished on Ferrari's 458 Italia by those who have driven it, it's going to have to impress on many. Ron Dennis has had no qualms about publicly singling out Ferrari as their benchmark. This comes as no surprise because in motorsport they say, "To be the best, you have to beat the best". And it is in motorsport where these two great companies and their long-standing rivalry was born.

                 

McLaren and Ferrari have traded blows at the front of the Formula 1 pack since the 1980s. In fact, between 1998 and 2008, they took all of the Formula 1 manufacturers' world titles that were on offer, bar two (stolen by Renault in 2005 & 2006). So McLaren trying to take Ferrari's mantle in the road car space isn't so much picking a fight as moving it to another arena. Only logical then for McLaren to go to so much effort to find top form with the MP4-12C and I for one wish McLaren succeed in their endeavour.

  

Especially because of the refreshing daring and ambition that is on display in a way that just isn't common anymore in the increasingly corporate (neutered!) world we live in. That and the potential that they might start a return to greatness for the British car industry.

The 'Bluemotion' diet

I was talking to a fellow car nut earlier today about spin and rhetoric and how easy it is to see through it in manufacturers' press releases. Having given it some thought though, I think the joke's been firmly on all of us.

I have visions of the heads-of-industry chuckling to themselves behind boardroom doors for lapping up the "downsizing" spiel they've been glibly feeding to us for years. I'll use the VW range to illustrate my point although I'm sure if I devoted the same amount of time to it, this could have worked just as well with Ford, Renault, PSA, Nissan and other 'mainstreamers'.

Very popular bit of trivia this, but the Mk V Polo was bigger in every dimension than the Mk I Golf, the original family hatch. With the Mk VI even bigger, I suspected the Polo was now approaching Mk I Passat territory so I decided to look up the figures and sure enough, the current mid-range Polo is a 1.4 petrol that pumps out 85 horses in a car that weighs about 1100kg. Original Passat? The top of the range was a 1.5 petrol with 84bhp and it weighed about 1100kg.

So Polo Mk VI, as big as Passat Mk I with current Golf, current Passat and Phaeton bigger still. Whereas the Polo used to be the smallest car in the VW range, VW have had to come up with the Lupo to file in underneath and more recently the Fox. And if Frankfurt 2009 is anything to go by, there'll soon be an 'Aye-up' joining the ranks.

So while manufacturers want you to believe you're downsizing when you opt for a Polo over a Golf, you're only really opting for the size of car you should always have had and that's why "downsizing" is so painless nowadays. Because it fundamentally isn't.

Increases in specific outputs, thermal efficiency and specific consumption have been used until now to disguise weight gain and that's why engine manufacturers have been able to find the massive gains they have in economy and emissions performance over the past couple of years.

Prime illustration? The VW Polo Bluemotion! Just by gearing that trades in performance for economy, engine electronics that do the same, stiff, skinny tyres and minor aerodynamic revisions, you get closer to 90mpg when you really should be getting more like 60mpg. Future increases in efficiency are going to be much harder to come by because all it's taken so far is a change of focus while applying the same technology.

Legislation means gains afforded by technology like direct injection and DSG gearboxes are now being directed where they always should have been rather than just towards affording us more interior space, safety devices and other creature-comforts; more road footprint for same amount of cost-to-own.

Think about that next time you're agonising over the hardship opting for a 'smaller' car might make you endure.