We’ve got specifications of the new McLaren F1 (P12) which appear to confirm our earlier reports on its power and performance.
In July we reported that the new McLaren F1 (P12) would be getting close to 1,000bhp for scintillating performance, an extreme design and would get a private showing at Pebble Beach.
At the time we wrote that we were still convinced McLaren were planning to take a real P12 to Pebble, but in the end they took an iPad presentation for a one-to-one look at their new hyprecar for a select few McLaren faithful.
That meant the new F1 would get its first reveal at the same time as the Ferrari F70 – at the Paris Motor Show this month – with McLaren teasing the P12 just this last week ahead of that debut.
Now we get what appears to be confirmation (more or less) of our original report on the P12’s performance from one of those lucky few who were at Pebble, and in McLaren’s good books, who’ve been having a quiet word with our friends over at Jalopnik.
Jalopnik are reporting their man as saying the P12 will get 803 horses at 9,100rpm (yes, 9100rpm) from a tweaked version of the 3.8 litre V8 from the MP4-12C, with a KERS boost adding another 160 horses. That’s a total of 963 horses at its disposal.
But the P12 isn’t just very powerful, it’s light. At under 1250kg the new F1 will have a power to weight ratio like no other road car. 0-62mph is said to come up in 2.8 seconds (which is a bit slower than we thought) but the quarter mile time of 9.1 seconds and 161mph is quite astonishing. Top speed is 239mph, but then top speed was never the priority.
But handling is a priority, and the new F1 is said to have active aerodynamics and can generate 2g of lateral force on road tyres and should be capable of out-handling anything else that could be considered competition. Apparently, the new F1 has lapped Silverstone 24 seconds quicker than any road car ever has.
According to Jaopnik’s man the new McLaren F1 will cost around £850,000 (+vat) and McLaren will make just 500.
Over to you, McLaren. Do we get official specs ahead of the new F1’s debut at Paris?
[nggallery id=643 template=customlinks]
Peloton25 says
Long before web journalism came along and ruined everything there used to be vetting of sources and some amount of journalistic integrity. Occasionally reporters did get it wrong and later a retraction was printed. Today however, there is a tendency to print an article based on any shred of information out there in order to be the first to report a story. Facts be damned, every rumor that can be collected quickly becomes reported as news, perhaps with a question mark in the headline like both you and Jalopnik chose to do, just to be safe. It doesn’t make sense to me at all – especially when this ‘news piece’ has been clearly debunked by the person who wrote it and had been from the start in fact. It does make you all look a little silly.
Jalopnik may have a lot of readers, but I don’t look for them for facts and would caution anyone who does. They’re much more akin to the tabloid newspapers you find near the counter at the supermarket – the Enquirer or the Mirror – neither one usually worth the paper it is printed on. The TV program Top Gear also gets a lot of viewers but you’d be silly to call everything you see there factual. Jeremy Clarkson still calls the Ferrari Enzo the “F60”, and that has never been its name, thus we have some Top Gear viewers who put too more faith in his words convinced it must be true. The program is staged and its goal is entertainment. I look at articles on Jalopnik in a similar light – though I sometimes question the value in their style of entertainment.
Recently the price of oil spiked on news from a fake Twitter account impersonating the Russian Interior Minister claimed that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had been killed. The story got picked up by several news agencies before it could be debunked and had a real effect on the market. Had the original reporter looked for secondary confirmation before going to print that could have likely been avoided. This is an extreme case, but an important example of getting the facts wrong and causing real harm to some people.
We saw this same phenomenon when you published your rumor of P12 being shown at Pebble Beach. The story was parroted by countless blogs and websites using your article as the source, yet there wasn’t a shred of truth to it and quite a few people ended up disappointed when they learned the facts. I guess the results for you were great – plenty of links to your site, plenty of clicks and some ad revenue in return but in the long run I hope that people will remember that what they read here was untrue. I think you should care how you will be judged in the future when you put something in print and should give pause before printing speculation as news.
Gene made it clear what he had written was in many respects satire. Anyone who read to the bottom of the page on his blog could plainly see that. There was a link to it right inside the Jalopnik article which you could have benefited from viewing. He also made a post on McLarenLife at the same time where he clearly stated:
“I took all the rumors, news, quotes and speculation and wrote an entirely fictional unveiling of the P12 on the 27th. Hope you guys enjoy it! 🙂 ”
So his bit of fun has now become news “confirming your earlier reports” – really?? There’s not a bit of desire to retract what you wrote now that the ‘facts’ are so clear? I find that disappointing.
>8^)
Erik
Cars UK says
Erik, much of what you say is true, and much of what you say is beyond dispute. But…
This article has an update stating that the basis of its content is based on a spoof article; short of taking it down – which we won’t for the reasons already explained – what more could we do?
As for our article about the P12 back in July, the source of that was a McLaren owner known to us who was told whilst at Woking – where he saw the P12 – that the intention was to take it to Pebble. That is solid enough for us to run a story.
If, as you assert, we were interested in only PVs and revenue we could publish every rumour that crosses our inbox every day. We don’t. We try to ensure there is a sound basis for any article we publish, and we will continue to do so. We have broken many stories that are bang on – and kept them up even after pressure and lies from car makers – and we will continue to do so. We do get things wrong from time to time, but we will admit and correct any story where that has happened – as we have with this.
jj says
http://insidemclaren.com/2012/09/mclaren-unveils-the-p12-as-we-see-it/
Read all the way to the bottom and then delete this article to save your selves the embarrassment
Cars UK says
LOL! Why would we find this article embarrassing?
Gene Sanchez says
Please quote the proper source of the article which is the link JJ posted above. These are not the stats, I made them up. 🙂
Cars UK says
You may have made them up, but we guess you made them up based on the figures we quoted (or others) in our article in July. We got this story from Jalopnik and quoted that as source (as we always do). If you are the source of the stats in that story then you now have your link.
Peloton25 says
Carsuk.net – You’re clearly not getting it…
Gene wrote the article on his Blog (InsideMcLaren.com) making up the stats as he went along. Regardless of what info he may have been referring to it doesn’t give his made up stats any more legitimacy just because they are close to other numbers that have been bantered about via previous rumors. To say that what he has written confirms your earlier reports is frankly a laughable claim.
Jalopnik took Gene’s blog as gospel and reposted it which was the first mistake. Now you are doing the same and then some, and that’s embarrassing for a site that promotes themselves as a source of news.
Can we look forward to you quoting thedailymash.co.uk or perhaps the Onion.com next? 😀
>8^)
Erik
Cars UK says
Interesting comments, Erik.
Yes, perhaps we made a mistake in accepting Jalopnik’s story at face value, but they are a significant force in car media and it doesn’t seem too difficult to understand why we would report it.
The article was written in good faith and it was made clear that we were reporting Jalopnik’s article, hence we referred to the figures in Jalopnik’s article as being close to those we had reported back in July. That was an entirely legitimate point as we believed, until the comments came in, that the story was genuine.
But we would rather leave the story up and let readers see we have made a mistake than simply take it down and not publish the comments.
If we publish a story we always ensure the source is as sound as possible. Yes, when trying to give our readers the heads-up ahead of actual events mistakes can happen, but we are always happy to correct the facts. Leaving this article up and publishing these comments seems the most transparent way of achieving that.
Surely, that makes sense?