Filed under: Safety, Videos, Supercars
VIDEO: McLaren F1 crash test
We get the whole omelet and broken eggs equation, but after seeing all the photos of Enzos wrapped around poles, we still find it hard to wrap our own heads around the notion that someone would take a million-dollar exotic and purposely crash it into a wall.
Unfortunately, the realities of safety certification demand that even an exclusive and expensive supercar like the record-shattering McLaren F1 still needs to be tested, to some extent, for road worthiness.
The video after the jump shows what happened – or rather, what didn't happen – to the supercar as it was crash-tested at the Motor Industry Research Association (MIRA) facility in England. You'll notice how the front structure of the Macca's carbon fiber monocoque chassis absorbed all the impact, leaving the rest of the car intact. Amazingly, the car was reported as the only car ever to be driven away from a MIRA crash test.
Warning: If you suffer from a heart condition, polarized emotional tendencies or depression, Autoblog does not advise viewing the video after the jump. Viewer discretion is advised.
[Source: Motor Authority]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Adam 3:40PM (4/18/2007)
Amazing
Reply
bmoredlj 3:41PM (4/18/2007)
Excellent craftsmanship.
Reply
ray ray 3:46PM (4/18/2007)
In this case, you get what you pay for.
Reply
Brian 3:46PM (4/18/2007)
Anyone know how fast this test was done at?
Reply
thesawzall 3:51PM (4/18/2007)
I'd think it would have excellent ratings on Driver leg protection too, since the driver sits along the centerline.
Reply
Mr. Red 4:01PM (4/18/2007)
that was a real real expensive crash test.
http://www.burnedbytheman.com
Reply
Andrew 4:05PM (4/18/2007)
noooooooooooooo
Reply
alex 4:08PM (4/18/2007)
NOOOOO!!!!!!!, I wonder who got to keep the crashed McLaren F1, they said it was still driveable???
Reply
Anastasios Kominis 4:19PM (4/18/2007)
Not to take anything away from the car but doesnt everyone realize that it was able only because it has a rear mounted engine unlike other cars with front mounted engines. If the engine was mounted on the front of the car the base structure might have survived but the car would still have needed to be towed away. The amazing part was not that it was driven away but that it took so little damage.
Reply
Viv 4:29PM (4/18/2007)
Screw the crash test; they should have given that car to people below the mclaren poverty line: LIKE ME!!
Reply
scopkins 4:43PM (4/18/2007)
Honestly I'm bothered by this test because as a rule of thumb the less damage to the car, the more to the person (all other forces being equal). I'm sure you've noticed how F1 cars disintegrate on impact to protect the driver. I imagine the number of Enzo losses is also higher because of the energy absorbing safety enginering (granted there were high speeds and bad decisions involved too).
Note that it says the car drove away, it doesn't say the scores were actually good. I'll be glad to be proven wrong on that, but I don't think we're looking at this very critically.
Reply
John 4:54PM (4/18/2007)
Anastasios-
you need front wheels to drive a car away, and the mclaren's are pretty far forward on the car yet it was able to be driven away, thats a partial testament to it's durability. I'm guessing that would be an issue on most other rear/mid engined cars being tested...
Reply
Bob-o 5:37PM (4/18/2007)
This test looks like it's nowhere near the speeds of a IIHS crash test.
Reply
Digitalrailroader 3:16PM (5/23/2009)
thats because this is the High Speed Camera View. At Normal Speed, the Crash only lasts a few seconds.
Anastasios Kominis 5:40PM (4/18/2007)
It is Durable but my argument is that if the engine was mounted in the front like most cars it wouldn't drive away cause the engine would have been destroyed. Plus the engine itself would have did some damage to the frame and body due to its location at that point. The reason it drove away was the engine was not the which limited the damage and the great construction of the car. but if the engine was the the would be another variable to account for that would cause the car not to drive away.
Reply
skadebo 6:37PM (4/18/2007)
Yes, but the car's design is such that it can drive away from such a crash. Why would we hypothesize possibilites for how the car isn't designed?
Reply
Rob 9:13PM (4/18/2007)
Props to #11, you're smarter than most people here. The same people who think that's safe are the same people who think SUVs are safe in accidents because they don't crumple much.
Reply
Ben 9:56PM (4/18/2007)
You guys are forgetting a critical ingredient...weight. The test is done at a set speed so a car that weighs 2513lbs is going to have much less momentum than your standard 3700lb Buick. Less energy to get absorbed by the structure.
Reply
Crunkjuice 11:35PM (4/18/2007)
Damn, it barely cause any serious damage...
Reply
Fuzzmanmatt 12:27AM (4/19/2007)
Or my 5300 lb Chevy? People walk away from accidents in that beast all the time.
Reply