Attention to detail? There was even a Procedure listed for directions to the chip shop! It was a fantastic experience working there. Thank you for recording and uploading it David.
It was a great project David, I don't think the rest of the McLaren group ever understood what we achieved in terms of design, manufacturing and production engineering. It's lovely to see some of the old team. I wonder where they are now? Thanks for posting. The scary thing is we closed down the site 20 years ago!
@@mcgusto82 The P1 had absolute praise from the pres. McLaren, as a new manufacturer, was able to compete with the hypercars from Ferrari and Porsche. Quite an achievement. The hybrid thing was what the market was at, in the end it’s business. Yeah the t50 is going to be great, obviously only Murray can do a ‘true’ successor, don’t think McLaren even said it was a successor for the F1. It didn’t even have the same layout.
@@bishopdredd5349 you’re right. The P1 is not a successor to the F1 but it plays the same role. The P1 is not capable to mimicking the F1 because it mission statement was not the same. Still the P1 is the 1st super hyper car maclaren produces since the F1. So when the hyper car spot was open, They thought to fulfill the desire of a new F1 with the P1 but it was never a f1.2. And because of that the P1 falls short of expectation.
Wow, this is the first time I have seen the full process of how McLaren F1 Chassis has been manufactured or should I say handcrafted. Really great footage and narrative! Thank you very much!
Funny how it looks hand crafted now but it was the fastest carbon fibre components factory in the world when it was in production. We used what are called lean and agile systems with a structured skill control system to control system to operate the factory.
Actually, the system was based on the theory of constraints i.e. drum buffer rope. Probably the first and only application in the automotive industry of the book The Goal.
The McLaren F1 had a BMW engine at a time when McLaren International was Mercedes Powered and financed, a multi million deal. We tried to fit a Merc engine but it had nothing like the performance, way over weight and too big. McLaren did a deal to kill off the F1 in exchange for the SLR project which had to meet Mercs design spec, hence front engine rear wheel drive to suit the American market. For the time that McLaren were funded by Mercedes They tried to kill off the memories of the F1 and publishing anything would get a law case. Also be aware of the need for McLaren to defend its brand. I suspect that discussion now of the F1 helps sales of the new cars hence things are more open.
Very interesting history there Mr. Skertchly. Did McLaren tried to fit a Merc engine during the F1 production? or that began before Paul Rousch supplied the famous S70/2? One of the interesting I find was the timing of Merc's development of CLK-GTR and McLaren's F1 GT (Longtail), Merc's prototype, which they claim to be completely theirs looked identical to a F1 Longtail. Did Merc stole Longtail's design or McLaren borrowed a bit of Merc's?
The F1 was designed around the Paul Roche engine. It was not off the shelf but designed by Paul and Gordon Murray for the car. There was no practical attempt to fit a Merc engine, it was a design study. The long tail car was a McLaren design made by producing an enlarged rear bumper (fender in American) the long tail is simply a bolt on bit. It was done to try and increase downforce. As a racer the F1 had limited downforce due its narrow width, this in turn was due to the size of the autoclave which made the 1 piece spider and separate floor. The autoclave had been specified by Ferrari and was an identical copy of the Scholts autoclave installed by Marconi Space at Portsmouth used by McLaren to Make the first carbon fibre formula 1tubs.
Thanks for the reply Mr. Skertchly! I have read a statement by Ray Bellm that he had always thought the Engine was too good for the Chassis and the Chassis was somewhat compromised since it never ran any rear sway bar. In fact, Gordon Murray couldn't believe some race teams custom fitted a rear sway bar into their GTR. So would you say that McLaren probably could have sold a few more F1, but killed it off at 100 units because of the Formula One deal with Mercedes? that would indeed be a very interesting twist in the history of the legendary F1.
It is absolutely the case that the F1 was killed off at 100 cars. One spare chassis over this number was made as a donee for repairs. The factory was turned over to making arts for the Formula 1 team which it did very successfully.
This footage is like released CIA documents.....I cannot believe that I finally got a chance to see what the F1's monocoque manufacturing process was. Those are some hardcore molds for the panels
I saw Top Gear footage many years ago when it was relesed and found it suprising it was all cut by hand and not by CNC machines with oscilating knife or some other rolling cutter- supprisingly low tech for the time.
Very perceptive of you....it was a conscious decision based on lean and agile principles. During the development every person in the factory could modify and refine templates, instead of just 1 kit citing operator, we had a very fast and effective CIP process. During production we could cut 6 kits at once, and there was no way we could afford 6 Gerber cutters. Kits were cut "Just in Time" so the material stock costs were minimised and the savings were greater than the cost of Gerber cutter. Our factory too was very agile. Finally we were part of a very happy team at Shalford. You cannot walk into a room with a kit cutting machine and crack jokes...they don't have a sense of humour. I am great believer in autonomation (a misuse of Ohno's original definition I know) and finding the balance between using smart flexible but variable humans and rigid accurate repeatable machines is potentially important both in developing economies and the developed economies as we move to industry 5.0.
I have never seen a CNC cutting machine that could approach the JIT output of those kit cutters. The goal was to avoid a constraint unless it was where we designed it to be. I have yet to come across a CNC cutter that is not a system constraint which at the beginning of the process is the worst possible place to have it. Then again I have yet to see a CNC cutter that has its OEE measured to attempt to remedy the situation. The belief that technology and super machines is the way forward is as flawed as the paperless office.
That's me at the wheel the day I was allowed to drive it through Woking. Ron went bezerk when he found out because I had a reputation as a really bad driver.
Attention to detail? There was even a Procedure listed for directions to the chip shop! It was a fantastic experience working there. Thank you for recording and uploading it David.
It was a great project David, I don't think the rest of the McLaren group ever understood what we achieved in terms of design, manufacturing and production engineering. It's lovely to see some of the old team. I wonder where they are now? Thanks for posting. The scary thing is we closed down the site 20 years ago!
They sure didn’t.
Just look at their P1 which was supposed to be the successor.
Gordon Murray’s t5.0 is going to be the winner against the P1.
@@mcgusto82 The P1 had absolute praise from the pres. McLaren, as a new manufacturer, was able to compete with the hypercars from Ferrari and Porsche. Quite an achievement. The hybrid thing was what the market was at, in the end it’s business. Yeah the t50 is going to be great, obviously only Murray can do a ‘true’ successor, don’t think McLaren even said it was a successor for the F1. It didn’t even have the same layout.
@@bishopdredd5349 you’re right. The P1 is not a successor to the F1 but it plays the same role.
The P1 is not capable to mimicking the F1 because it mission statement was not the same.
Still the P1 is the 1st super hyper car maclaren produces since the F1. So when the hyper car spot was open, They thought to fulfill the desire of a new F1 with the P1 but it was never a f1.2.
And because of that the P1 falls short of expectation.
Mclaren F1 is the greatest car
Wow, this is the first time I have seen the full process of how McLaren F1 Chassis has been manufactured or should I say handcrafted. Really great footage and narrative! Thank you very much!
Funny how it looks hand crafted now but it was the fastest carbon fibre components factory in the world when it was in production. We used what are called lean and agile systems with a structured skill control system to control system to operate the factory.
That's even better if you guys could apply Lean and Agile management system at the time! Makes MF1 even more advanced in my mind!
Actually, the system was based on the theory of constraints i.e. drum buffer rope. Probably the first and only application in the automotive industry of the book The Goal.
Thank you for sharing your story, great to have this insight available.
geez, the first 8 secs of the intro and music fits a horror movie
OMG! What a video! Thank you a lot for such a detailed explanation and footage of how it was made! Very valuable and interesting.
Thanks for posting this! Cheers from Portugal!
Even Jay Leno agrees that it’s the greatest,he loves his!👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you for this great video!
Amazing stuff. The F1 is a legend.
how young we all looked!
Mark Godsell
congrats. probabley the greatest car ever made.you should feel proud of being part of a team that made this amazing machine 👍
hope you are well Mark. Hey, I still look just as young!
Gordon Murrey is actually making a successor to the McLaren F1 called the Gordon Murrey T.50
F40 and F1 greatest cars, ever.
Thank you very much for sharing this David!
Thank you very much for this video- very interesting!
Why are more and more videos of the Mclaren F1 only appears about 20 years after its production?
The McLaren F1 had a BMW engine at a time when McLaren International was Mercedes Powered and financed, a multi million deal. We tried to fit a Merc engine but it had nothing like the performance, way over weight and too big. McLaren did a deal to kill off the F1 in exchange for the SLR project which had to meet Mercs design spec, hence front engine rear wheel drive to suit the American market. For the time that McLaren were funded by Mercedes They tried to kill off the memories of the F1 and publishing anything would get a law case. Also be aware of the need for McLaren to defend its brand. I suspect that discussion now of the F1 helps sales of the new cars hence things are more open.
Very interesting history there Mr. Skertchly. Did McLaren tried to fit a Merc engine during the F1 production? or that began before Paul Rousch supplied the famous S70/2? One of the interesting I find was the timing of Merc's development of CLK-GTR and McLaren's F1 GT (Longtail), Merc's prototype, which they claim to be completely theirs looked identical to a F1 Longtail. Did Merc stole Longtail's design or McLaren borrowed a bit of Merc's?
The F1 was designed around the Paul Roche engine. It was not off the shelf but designed by Paul and Gordon Murray for the car. There was no practical attempt to fit a Merc engine, it was a design study. The long tail car was a McLaren design made by producing an enlarged rear bumper (fender in American) the long tail is simply a bolt on bit. It was done to try and increase downforce. As a racer the F1 had limited downforce due its narrow width, this in turn was due to the size of the autoclave which made the 1 piece spider and separate floor. The autoclave had been specified by Ferrari and was an identical copy of the Scholts autoclave installed by Marconi Space at Portsmouth used by McLaren to Make the first carbon fibre formula 1tubs.
Thanks for the reply Mr. Skertchly! I have read a statement by Ray Bellm that he had always thought the Engine was too good for the Chassis and the Chassis was somewhat compromised since it never ran any rear sway bar. In fact, Gordon Murray couldn't believe some race teams custom fitted a rear sway bar into their GTR. So would you say that McLaren probably could have sold a few more F1, but killed it off at 100 units because of the Formula One deal with Mercedes? that would indeed be a very interesting twist in the history of the legendary F1.
It is absolutely the case that the F1 was killed off at 100 cars. One spare chassis over this number was made as a donee for repairs. The factory was turned over to making arts for the Formula 1 team which it did very successfully.
they were made in a factory in shalford England which is now offices. 2 miles down my road
Yup it looks like offices but is in fact Gordon Murrays factory for making his special cars.
Thank you for sharing
whelp , it seems some parts are more easy to do it , until then, a pain in the a** part...
a great job to craft this thing!
I think the Jaguar xjr-15 was first carbon body/chassis? I could be wrong but thats how i remember it
There was a lot of argument, the F1 had a carbon chassis and a carbon body. The jag had aluminium bodywork.
This footage is like released CIA documents.....I cannot believe that I finally got a chance to see what the F1's monocoque manufacturing process was. Those are some hardcore molds for the panels
I had to keep it secret for years. I uploaded it when Mclaren could no longer wreck my career.
Well, hats off to you sir. I've been looking for ANYTHING Mclaren F1 monocoque for years, and this is gold, I tell you.
thats very sad David.
@@DavidSkertchly well, thanks for holding on to it.
I wonder how much of a hand Murray actually had in the design and engineering of these products with his name on them.
Gordon had a great team around him as do all designers but the ideas were all his.
I saw Top Gear footage many years ago when it was relesed and found it suprising it was all cut by hand and not by CNC machines with oscilating knife or some other rolling cutter- supprisingly low tech for the time.
Very perceptive of you....it was a conscious decision based on lean and agile principles. During the development every person in the factory could modify and refine templates, instead of just 1 kit citing operator, we had a very fast and effective CIP process. During production we could cut 6 kits at once, and there was no way we could afford 6 Gerber cutters. Kits were cut "Just in Time" so the material stock costs were minimised and the savings were greater than the cost of Gerber cutter. Our factory too was very agile. Finally we were part of a very happy team at Shalford. You cannot walk into a room with a kit cutting machine and crack jokes...they don't have a sense of humour. I am great believer in autonomation (a misuse of Ohno's original definition I know) and finding the balance between using smart flexible but variable humans and rigid accurate repeatable machines is potentially important both in developing economies and the developed economies as we move to industry 5.0.
I have never seen a CNC cutting machine that could approach the JIT output of those kit cutters. The goal was to avoid a constraint unless it was where we designed it to be. I have yet to come across a CNC cutter that is not a system constraint which at the beginning of the process is the worst possible place to have it. Then again I have yet to see a CNC cutter that has its OEE measured to attempt to remedy the situation. The belief that technology and super machines is the way forward is as flawed as the paperless office.
Wonder what will win in a race this or my Honda Civic
This is why people hate Honda owners.
Wait so F1 chassis was not built as the McLaren factory?
Where is the car in the thumbnail?
That's me at the wheel the day I was allowed to drive it through Woking. Ron went bezerk when he found out because I had a reputation as a really bad driver.
Mr Bump!
Cicaflex
Sicaflex
Intermittent no right channel audio
Very annoying on headphones, would have been so easy to remedy during editing