Talk:McLaren Speedtail

"ailerons"

I think using aviation terminology for a car is inaccurate. Aircraft parts perform a specific function, none of which accurately apply to an automobile. What the McLaren has is active aerodynamic control surfaces, which perform the same functions as a wing or diffuser on any other car, only they are variable. In any case, calling it "ailerons" is wrong, since they are mounted on the REAR of the car. Ailerons are found on the wings of an aircraft, and their function is to provide roll control. Unless the Mclaren has wing surfaces protruding from the sides of the car designed to force one side of the car down and the other up, and ONLY to control roll, they cannot be "ailerons". A wing at the rear of a car is equivalent to elevators on an aircraft, which control the pitching moment of the fuselage. Even if they can be differentially controlled to aid cornering grip, since they are on the rear, they would be elevons, which combine the uses of the ailerons and elevators into a single surface, generally found on tailless aircraft at the trailing edge of the wings, although some modern jet fighters use differential elevons as well as ailerons to increase roll moment. Since the job of the surfaces on the Maclaren are not to actually pitch or roll the body, but merely to increase downforce in certain areas, they are not either ailerons nor elevons or elevators. No more than the active rear wing on any other supercar is. We don't call a fixed rear wing a "horizontal stabilizer". They may be made of fancy flexible carbon fiber, but in function they are no different then modern active aero controls on the rear of many other modern supercars. ust because someone in marketing thought it would be cool to call them "ailerons" doesn't make it accurate.

Idumea47b (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

good demo 156.200.235.63 (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power output

on McLaren's website [1], they claim that the Speedtail produces 1070 PS (1036 bhp) but this conversion doesn't seem to make sense. 1036 bhp converts to 1050 PS in every calculator i've tried. Is this just a mistake on their part? Or am I missing something? TKOIII (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]