GTP Cool Wall: McLaren MP4/4

[Adamgp]

Don't care for F1, so a solid "meh" from me.

 

[Joey D]

.
I'd say that being a racing driver is a cool job (pretty much as exotic as it gets, really, short of being an astronaut or a fighter jet pilot - only better paid than either right at the top levels) - so as a tool inherent to their own coolness, I'd say a race car can also be cool.

Being a racecar driver would be a cool job, but racecar drivers themselves aren't cool people. They are either really full of themselves or super dorky. I'm sure there are exceptions though.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Being a racecar driver would be a cool job, but racecar drivers themselves aren't cool people. They are either really full of themselves or super dorky. I'm sure there are exceptions though.

Well, of the drivers I've met they represent a pretty good cross section... some are pretty decent people, some are total idiots... though I'm struggling to think of any that were actually 'cool' in person.

 

[homeforsummer]

Ew. Downsizing. Seriously uncool.

👍

Being a racecar driver would be a cool job, but racecar drivers themselves aren't cool people. They are either really full of themselves or super dorky. I'm sure there are exceptions though.

Well, true. I meant more the job than the drivers in truth. It's gotta be right up there for underwear-dropping potential But as the car goes hand-in-hand with the cool job, I reckon race cars can be cool. Particularly old ones, which can trade on their historical impact. A bit like a Spitfire being cooler than a Eurofighter.

 

[Famine]

The untouchable is never cool.

There are a set of (realistic) circumstances whereby anyone and everyone reading this post can drive and experience a GT-R, a Bugatti Veyron, a Maybach 62 or what have you.

There are no set of (realistic) circumstances whereby more than a single individual reading this post (and that individual is TECHNIKRS4) can drive and experience a McLaren MP4/4. I'll never drive it. You'll never drive it (unless you're Jann).

It is, for most of us, a museum piece. For some it may be a moving museum piece (at GWFOS, for example). But it's not a car for us - and it's not cool.

 

[homeforsummer]

The untouchable is never cool.

Does that then make things like the aforementioned Spitfire, or Saturn 5, not cool? Or even something marginally more attainable but still essentially unrealistic for 99.9% of us, like an original Tag Heuer Monaco?

While I generally have little interest in stuff that isn't something I could realistically own, so can understand that side of it, I still find old Grand Prix cars hugely cool. I wouldn't necessarily say that you have to be able to own something to find it cool.

 

[Famine]

Does that then make things like the aforementioned Spitfire, or Saturn 5, not cool? Or even something marginally more attainable but still essentially unrealistic for 99.9% of us, like an original Tag Heuer Monaco?

Pretty much, yes.

A Saturn V is much, much worse than that because it's ubergeeky - and while geekiness may be going through a cool spell (geek chic ), it'll pass and return to the marginalisation that "knowing things" often attracts. And Spitfires? That's... like... war things from a hundred years ago or something (sic).


By mine own definitions, the experience of something is the largest part of coolness. Vicarious experience - such as watching it at GWFOS or actually live in 1988 - is a close substitute. A static piece that may as well be a model (and sometimes even is!)... isn't.

 

[homeforsummer]

By mine own definitions, the experience of something is the largest part of coolness.

I tend to separate coolness from my own experience since most things I do cannot be considered cool. I find it easier to project coolness.

Though I do understand your point about "old" stuff. To a degree, anyway. Like "geek chic", "retro" is also "in" at the moment, so old things are automatically granted a little extra coolness. Not sure if that really applies to 1940s warplanes admittedly, but then I suspect even the most jaded or uneducated types would let out an involuntary "ooh" if a Spitfire zoomed overhead.

 

[Shoe67]

One of the most iconic F1 cars ever, driven by two of the most iconic F1 drivers ever?

Sub-zero for sure

 

[eight6er]

I voted uncool, it does have a few cool things about it which saves it from seriously uncool, but overall it's still a F1 race car, so it'll never be cool to me as they are just tools that very few will ever get to use.

 

[skynyrd]

Cool.

Most race cars are sorta cool. Winning race cars are a little cooler, but I don't see how anyone can say this thing is sub zero.

 

[Famine]

I tend to separate coolness from my own experience since most things I do cannot be considered cool. I find it easier to project coolness.

Oh, I'm happy to exude a magnificent lack of coolness. However the point isn't that few people have experienced it, but that it's something no-one here can experience.

It can't be a cool car because it basically isn't a car - you can't drive it. If you're lucky you could maybe have seen it driving (outside of TV or Youtube videos of old F1 races) but as for driving it? Nope. It's an exhibit.


Trying to give a car you can't drive a rating of coolness is like trying to give a rating of how good sex is when it's someone else doing it - when the reality is that you're thinking "Nuts to that guy, I want a go".

 

[Leonidae@MFT]

Sub Zero. Because Senna.

 

[Bopop4]

However the point isn't that few people have experienced it, but that it's something no-one here can experience.

So does that mean that climbing Everest or going to space is uncool because you can't do it?

Just because you can't have something doesn't make it uncool, you can still appreciate its history and spirit.

 

[Crash]

If this was street legal, I wouldn't want to be caught dead arriving at a club in one of these. However, it is legendary within F1 circles. So meh.

 

[Famine]

So does that mean that climbing Everest or going to space is uncool because you can't do it?

People here can do either. The latter is slightly harder, but they can still do it.

But no, that's not what that means. The rest of the post told you the meaning...

Just because you can't have something doesn't make it uncool, you can still appreciate its history and spirit.

As a museum piece. Not a car.

It may be the coolest museum piece in the world, but it's not a cool car because it's not a car for almost everyone on the planet.

 

[Bopop4]

People here can do either. The latter is slightly harder, but they can still do it.

There's only been about 750 people that have gone to space, so it's not easy by any means, although getting to drive an MP4 of any year is still going to be rarer, that doesn't take away how cool something is.

But no, that's not what that means. The rest of the post told you the meaning...As a museum piece. Not a car.
It may be the coolest museum piece in the world, but it's not a cool car because it's not a car for almost everyone on the planet.

But why does getting to drive it change how cool it is?

You can still appreciate the spirit of the car.
Something that is designed to run at the highest level of motorsport, and doing it extremely well is just awesome.

It doesn't matter if it's not being raced anymore, you have to think back to the time when it was being raced.

Take the 787b for example, not a quick car in its class, and it only won when everyone else dropped out.

But the uniqueness of the car and the fact that it did win makes that cool.
Not to mention the sound and paint scheme...

 

[Famine]

There's only been about 750 people that have gone to space, so it's not easy by any means

Which is why I didn't say it was easy.

although getting to drive an MP4 of any year is still going to be rarer, that doesn't take away how cool something is.

But why does getting to drive it change how cool it is?

No, you're not paying attention. It's the car part that is the problem, not the cool part.

There are a set of circumstances that can end in me - or you, or anyone reading this - driving, say, a Nissan GT-R. Or a Veyron. Or pick a car. There are no set of circumstances that can end in me - or you, or anyone reading this (except maybe Jann Mardenborough or Chris Zoechling) - driving a McLaren MP4/4. It is thus not a car to me - or you, or anyone reading this.

It's a museum piece. It's an exhibit. It's a memory. It's a dream. It can be a cool thing for any of these reasons, but it cannot be a cool car because it's not a car for you - you cannot drive it.

 

[Pupik]

Why are we rating racing cars?

I can't see how any F1 car, single seater or any pure race car for that matter, can possibly be judged as cool or uncool. As a vehicle it can only be judged on it's success on track, there's nothing subjective about it.

^ This. Sometimes innovation is cool, even if it's not successful the first time around.

Although, in terms if how boring the racing was in 1988, this machine might have made F1 racing itself quite uncool.

 

[Wolfe]

In practical terms I'm just as likely to get a chance to drive a $200k Ferrari as an MP4/4, much less a Veyron. In my opinion, the theoretically possible chance to drive a supercar doesn't make it any more of a "car for me" than the MP4/4. I've actually stood next to a Formula 1 car of this vintage (in a museum ). I've never seen a Veyron in the flesh.

The entire hobby of automotive enthusiasm -- and the raison d'etre of this subforum -- is predicated on rating cars you've never driven and will never drive. Whether it's just effectively unlikely or nigh impossible that you'll ever drive a car doesn't make much difference to me.

 

[Tyger]

I like and respect you Famine (on the basis of the majority of your posts and the work you put in here), but this is one of your more bizarre arguments. Something can only be "cool" if there is a chance you can drive it or experience it? I really don't think you thought that one through, so arguing the point over and over is actually a little bizarre.

I do agree that in a sense F1 cars can't be "cool", but because they are functional, like a tennis racquet might be good but not "cool". Also for the most part, they are 99.9% function over form. Not because 99.999% of people will never be able to experience them first hand though.

 

[Famine]

No no no... In order to qualify as a cool thing it must be that thing. Jenson Button is cool, but he's not a cool octogenarian Russian wicketkeeper.

The point isn't that the McLaren MP4/4 isn't cool because you can't drive it, but that it isn't a car because you can't drive it, excluding it from being a cool car.

 

[Badasp5.0]

this deserves higher than sub-zero. Senna and the mp4/4 were a legendary combination during a time of real drivers and turbocharged insanity. It's a magnificent machine.

+1

 

[Worst_Driver]

Sub-zero...because racecar.

 

[Badasp5.0]

No no no... In order to qualify as a cool thing it must be that thing. Jenson Button is cool, but he's not a cool octogenarian Russian wicketkeeper.

The point isn't that the McLaren MP4/4 isn't cool because you can't drive it, but that it isn't a car because you can't drive it, excluding it from being a cool car.

It doesnt stop it from being a cool car that you can wish to drive. In the greater scheme of things I probally have equal chance of driving a MP4/4 as a Mclaren F1 (which is NIL) so that doesnt stop me from thinking the F1 is a CAR that is cool.

 

[Famine]

In the greater scheme of things I probally have equal chance of driving a MP4/4 as a Mclaren F1 (which is NIL)

Nope. You have a "tending to zero" chance of driving an MP4/4 and a "non-zero" chance of driving a McLaren F1.

There's six McLaren MP4/4s. Five are in public museums and the sixth is in a private museum. You won't ever encounter one outside of a museum - or, if you're really lucky, a motorshow. When you do encounter one it could, for all you know, be a GRP replica of one for static display only (hoodwinking you - and lies are not cool) - but it is very unlikely that it'll be being driven by anyone, much less a regular joe, particularly as you need some special training to drive one and then be let out alone.

There's a hundred and six McLaren F1s. Some are in public museums and some are in private collections, but many are not. You are as likely to encounter them outside of museums as you are within them and it's very likely that there'll be someone driving one and they were there is a quite unlikely set of circumstances that could lead to a regular joe driving one - they were designed not to need any special training to drive and there's space for additional people to monitor you. A similar unlikely set of circumstances lead to me driving a Nissan GT-R 3 years ago. I've driven two more since...


So while you'll almost certainly never encounter the MP4/4 being a car (the last time one was out was 18 months ago, and Lewis Hamilton drove it in a closed session at Silverstone) and even more certainly never encounter it being a car with you driving it, it's merely quite unlikely you'll encounter an F1 being a car and very unlikely you'll encounter it being a car with you driving it. The difference is that some F1s are still cars, but no MP4/4 is.

The F1 can be a cool car (if you think it is) because it's a car. The MP4/4 can only be a cool exhibition piece (assuming it's a real one and they've not put in the model while the real one's away for some reason).

 

[BKGlover]

Ahh. Now I see the logic clearly. I do suppose that unlike some other race cars, F1 cars usually push this point home, don't they.

 

[Roger the Horse]

I fully understand what Famine was saying, and that was part of the reason why I voted this particular McLaren as being Seriously Uncool. However, here we see an issue with Famine's "all racing cars are automatically seriously uncool" rule. Take as an example the Porsche 962. 91 were built, along with 28, arguably 29 of its very similar predecessor the 956. Of these many are still competing regularly in historic racing, and last time I checked, many of these are being driven merely by wealthy amateur drivers, who merely have come into enough money (which is surprisingly little, even if it is still as much as a reasonably sized house) to afford one of those machines. Although, especially in these economic times, the chances of the "average Joe" coming into enough money to become one of these wealthy individuals are slim, they are far from impossible and any "average Joe" you see on the street could well find themselves sitting behind the wheel of a Porsche 962 in a historic race meeting, or perhaps at some kind of track day.

Every car should be treated uniquely when trying to judge it on completely subjective terms which don't really matter to anyone in the slightest, and yet still seem highly prone to cause arguments.

 

[BKGlover]

Every car should be treated uniquely when trying to judge it on completely subjective terms which don't really matter to anyone in the slightest, and yet still seem highly prone to cause arguments.

I'm with you. I understand the mindset that Famine, Tornado, and others have, and I do respect their opinions because they have a strong reason to believe it. That said, I don't really care if it's a race car or not. To me, each car must get a decent look at least, and be judged on their own merit, with looks being a big factor personally. Ability to move you helps as well, and like I said earlier, this doen't move me much.

Aside from that though, it's the internet. If an argument can be made, no matter how asinine, absurd, or idiotic it may be, it will be made. I think it may be a rule of the internet, not sure though. At least the arguments are somewhat intelligible.

 

[Famine]

Take as an example the Porsche 962.

Bad example: