Hypercars

[Just_a_fan]

Schuppan made the CR in 1991. Inspired by the 962 but a bespoke chassis was made by Reynard with a carbon fibre tub.
Reminds me a bit of the Isdera Commendatore.
End results 230mph, and 0-60 in 3.4 seconds.
But it lacked creature comforts and had turbos....


https://www.topcarrating.com/schuppan/ ... sche-2.jpg

McLaren built more F1 prototypes than Schuppan built actual cars. Had they survived long enough get in to a production run, maybe they'd be heralded today as the first hypercar, albeit one that was effectively a race car (it used the IMSA race car engine) civilised for the road.

Is that an XJR-15 in the background? Lovely looking car.

I do think the road car thing is important in the definition - you make comment about creature comforts as if it's a bad thing, but it's what makes a road car a realistic proposition as a road car. And hypercars are road cars.

[ValeVida46]

As for the 959 / F40. You claimed that the F40 was the first hypercar. I'm just pointing out that the 959 was first and it was basically the same, in terms of performance, and thus would be the first hypercar if you think the F1 wasn't.

I made no such claim, feel free to quote where I did say this. My first post if read back was in response to you claiming the F1 was "probably" the first.
That the 959 was months before the Ferrari doesn't change that the F1 was not the first. The F1 moved the game on for sure, but so did the 959 and F40. You'll probably also note they're all 3 differing concepts.

I was merely pointing out why the F40 race car was quicker than the F1 race car in the case that you posted back in the thread. Increasing boost from 1.1bar to 2.6bar is always going to have a massive effect on the car's performance, isn't it? It's not a disqualification, it was an observation

But it has no relevance at all. Why would an increase in turbo boost be an issue for discussing the F40 as a candidate for being a Hypercar?
It's not like they went to the lengths of changing the entire suspension, revamp the entire engine and change the aerodynamics and cooling. The F40 LM was hardly a B spec.

As it happens, many commentators put the F1 as the first hypercar, with the F40 and 959 being the pinnacle of the supercar brigade. Which seems eminently reasonable when considering the performance of the three and their various competitors. We have left the hypercars behind now, anyway, with the move to megacars (as Koenigsegg refers to them) such as the Swedish cars and the Bugatti stable.

I never went beyond the Supercar tag. It's just a hyperbolic adjective for an evolved car.
Citing figures to suggest a a new hyper/mega category change, it's problematic. Where are the lines drawn?
Mega-Duper-Supercar? It kind of just gets ridiculous when people try qualifying the fastest production cars of their day with tags.
What is interesting is the RUF CTR was a supercar that could do 215mph in 1988, and people are happy to class it a supercar.
The F1 could not reach it's top speed without having the rev limiter removed, and could attain 221mph from factory spec. So is the F1 a supercar from factory only to become a hypercar once the limiter (reliability) is removed?
This just goes to show how moot it is to define it.

The F1 did "invest in an engine" - it was built specifically for them by BMW after Honda got cold feet and wouldn't play. The F40, however, used an engine derived from the Dino V8 (also used by the 308 and the 288GTO (the real competitor for the 959 as both of them were originally intended for Grp B)). So the F40 didn't have to invest in an engine where the F1 did

That's not true at all. The S70 V12 was well in existence before McLaren were rejected by Honda.
Especially the High performance version which was already earmarked for the aborted M8 project of 1990. The S2 version was already a planned version that hadn't been run yet (essentially 2x S50B32) and was conceptually already doing the rounds at BMW and was one of the conceptual engines that were up for contention in powering the M8.
Paul Rosche already had three 4-valve per cylinder(S70) engines on the bench doing runs before Macca even thought of asking them. A bunch of features the S70/2 sported came directly from the S70 including roller valves and the carbon intake system.
So far from a "specifically built", it was literally already an ongoing study for a flagship BMW.
As for Ferrari, I couldn't care less if there pony was from the 70s and they didn't invest in it at all... it's not the same as going cap in hand to BMW and getting a 620bhp V12. They're not remotely the same, not that it matters much but it does seem a real stretch to be questioning Ferrari for their own engine, when McLaren couldn't even build their own.
Again, not in anyway a reflection of the F1 not being a brilliant machine. But making allowances for one and then dismissing the other...

[Mattchu]

Agree to disagree, we want more super/hyper/megacar pics

[gruntguru]

I was merely pointing out why the F40 race car was quicker than the F1 race car in the case that you posted back in the thread. Increasing boost from 1.1bar to 2.6bar is always going to have a massive effect on the car's performance, isn't it? It's not a disqualification, it was an observation

But it has no relevance at all. Why would an increase in turbo boost be an issue for discussing the F40 as a candidate for being a Hypercar?

If you are arguing the inclusion of the F40 in the hypercar category, it is not reasonable to point to a race-prepped special with 50% power increase.

[Just_a_fan]

Agree to disagree, we want more super/hyper/megacar pics

https://i.postimg.cc/L8bT4Mc5/pinin.png

McLaren's Speedtail and Solus GT, although I can't say either of them do much for me:

[ValeVida46]

I was merely pointing out why the F40 race car was quicker than the F1 race car in the case that you posted back in the thread. Increasing boost from 1.1bar to 2.6bar is always going to have a massive effect on the car's performance, isn't it? It's not a disqualification, it was an observation

But it has no relevance at all. Why would an increase in turbo boost be an issue for discussing the F40 as a candidate for being a Hypercar?

If you are arguing the inclusion of the F40 in the hypercar category, it is not reasonable to point to a race-prepped special with 50% power increase.

How does this affect the original? The extension to the point was that it was easy for Ferrari to do it.
That the F40 LM exists does not mean the original should not be included in the grand scheme of things right?
Edit: a Video for context.

[the EDGE]

McLaren's Speedtail and Solus GT, although I can't say either of them do much for me:

Pictures rarely do cars justice… I haven’t seen either of those two, but the McLaren Senna looks a thousand times better in real life than in any photo

[chrstphrln]

(...)

It's not all about 0-60 times, but we are comparing cars from 3 decades ago. A modern hot hatch would piss all over a Ferrari, Lambo or Porsche from the 60s. Woo hoo.

The F1 did "invest in an engine" - it was built specifically for them by BMW after Honda got cold feet and wouldn't play. The F40, however, used an engine derived from the Dino V8 (also used by the 308 and the 288GTO (the real competitor for the 959 as both of them were originally intended for Grp B)). So the F40 didn't have to invest in an engine where the F1 did.
(...)

Not exact.
The 288 GTO was only the homologation vehicle and was never intended to compete in Group B in the form presented.
That should make the further development known as Evoluzione.
Porsche went a different route, so the equivalent for the 959 would actually be the Evoluzione, not the street GTO.
As we know, the end of Group B and the development of the Evoluzione led to the F40 quite quickly.
Although the two models could hardly be more different, they were the best-known supercars of their time and the McLaren F1, which was developed much later, initially struggled with the image of a latecomer and with the disadvantage of its externally developed engine.
The dispute over what was the first "hypercar" or the first "supercar" is completely superfluous.
Even freely defined exclusion criteria based on certain technical features that favor one or the other model probably stem more from personal sympathies than from a necessary definition of the terms.

[ValeVida46]

Even freely defined exclusion criteria based on certain technical features that favor one or the other model probably stem more from personal sympathies than from a necessary definition of the terms.

Perfectly summed up sir!

[CMSMJ1]

Am impressed* how a thread containing such great info, lovely pics and reasonable levels of disagreeing agreably still manages to be so bloody partisan

I'm a child of the eighties - The 959, for me, was such a technogeek vehicle that I loved it (and that my stepdad had had a 1974 911 when I was younger, so Porsche FTW)

F40 though.. We lived in Germany in the 80/90s with BAOR - We went to Nurburgring in probably 1990/1991 -I'll have to check to see the Endurance racing. The Jags, the Saubers and so on. A certain M Schumacher was driving..

Anyways..in the paddock I was allowed to sit in an F40 and it had a little rev up and I was amazed. What a sound. What a raw thing.

On the way home we were overtaken by an F40 - not sure it was the same, but perhaps it was, and we "raced" it for maybe 15 minutes through the awesome German roads in our Integrale (Another lovely car)

The flames, the noise and the smell from the cracklingbanging speeding red car has always been with me. Superb.

Randomly..last year I think, my son and I stopped at a really shabby kart track near Newark. We'd had our first sessions and I clocked in the carpark (rough gravel - more rough than the crappiest of country driveways) - a 288 GTO.

I'd never seen on in real life before - i.e being used. Wow. What a lovely car. The old chap driving it was giving zero photons about the area, the gravel or the fact that he had a megabucks and rare vehicle out for a little drive to take his grandson karting.

Anyways - Hypercars, supercars - whatever labels we put on them - it is the visceral and himan response to them that makes it special. Any Tesla can go bloody fast - but I am more excited in my iron, or my ceiling fan. It is dead.

A 959, an F40 - the XJR15...or the new school stuff from Koennigsegg etc - they grab you in the feels. It is that which makes them super, or maybe if they do that and go reallybloodymegafasterthan200mph - you can call them hyper too.

Chop chop with more cool cars please






*not impressed

[Just_a_fan]

Am impressed* how a thread containing such great info, lovely pics and reasonable levels of disagreeing agreably still manages to be so bloody partisan

You're a mod on an F1 forum and you're surprised by partisanship in a discussion? Wow.

Surely you should be happy that, although people are being partisan, the discussion has remained well behaved. We've disagreed but no one has resorted to insults or the usual stuff that we see elsewhere on the forum. That should get us all a pat on the back, surely?

[Just_a_fan]

Even freely defined exclusion criteria based on certain technical features that favor one or the other model probably stem more from personal sympathies than from a necessary definition of the terms.

Of course it is. It's not surprising - people make decisions based on personal preferences all the time. That's what humans do.

[Just_a_fan]

McLaren's Speedtail and Solus GT, although I can't say either of them do much for me:

Pictures rarely do cars justice… I haven’t seen either of those two, but the McLaren Senna looks a thousand times better in real life than in any photo

Maybe it's the way they're photographed, but the Speedtail looks, to me, horrible out of proportion. The Solus is obviously working the air hard but it looks contrived to my eyes. Other cars that work the air hard look much nicer to the eye e.g. the Valkyrie.

[CMSMJ1]

Am impressed* how a thread containing such great info, lovely pics and reasonable levels of disagreeing agreably still manages to be so bloody partisan

You're a mod on an F1 forum and you're surprised by partisanship in a discussion? Wow.

Surely you should be happy that, although people are being partisan, the discussion has remained well behaved. We've disagreed but no one has resorted to insults or the usual stuff that we see elsewhere on the forum. That should get us all a pat on the back, surely?

Indeed - that you guys have all been disagreeing and being polite and cool with it - that is awesome to see and read.

I remain at liberty to be amazed that everything, even neutral or collective interest stuff like fast cars, becomes a McLaren vs Ferrari handbags moment A polite one, albeit still partisan!

Carry on

[ValeVida46]

Yamaha ox99-11.
Carbon fibre tub, aluminium panels, V12 that revs to 10k+, 215mph+, sounds insane but only 3 made as it was killed by the Japanese recession.
F1 inspired aero too...30 years before Newey
Damn shame.