>Why would anybody want the weight of a power-sapping air-conditioning
>system in something which is supposed to be a sports car?
Why would Mika Hakkinen want to drive around town in a sweltering hot
McLaren road car when he could drive around in a comfortable, and
similarly flashy, Ferrari?
>Why would anybody want a stereo when they have that wonderful V12 to
Because he listens to it all day at his job? (Note: I know the F1
engine is a V10 and I know the sound of a V10 isnt the same as a V12
but I bet it ain't so great idling at a stop light. Anyway, can't the
man listen to some music every once in a while?)
>I can assure you that they are perfectly adequate and the car
>functions well as a three-seater. If stupid US regulations prevent
>their use, then that is the Americans' loss.
Well, I've never actually seen the car in person, only read the
magazine articles, so maybe I misjudged the seats. But I still think
that it'd be awkward to have your wife sitting anywhere but right next
to you when your driving in social situations.
>Simply not true, I'm afraid. The F1 was designed from scratch as a
>road car. It was only re-engineered for racing - initially somewhat
>reluctantly - because McLaren was persuaded to do so by wealthy
>individuals who wished to race the car.
No, it is true. Maybe technically, the McLaren isn't to the specs of
any race series. But the overall effect of having all that
horsepower, racing suspension, no A/C, no stereo, center drivers seat,
etc creates the image that the car is more race-oriented than
"everyday-driver" oriented. Compared to the McLaren, the 360 might as
well be a Lincoln - alright that's quite the hyperbole but I think it
gets the point across.