38 replies to this topic

[gruntguru]

Best video I've seen this year. Gordon Murray talks at length about the F1 and the T.50 and walks around both cars.

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=K4EIYQ6fkG4

 

 

Some additional info here.

https://www.youtube....h?v=YKRMY4sm_f0

Gordon Murray makes so much sense. Could listen to him all day.

 

. . and here

https://www.youtube....h?v=NT8PMXCMrsM

 

 - Crankshaft CL 85 mm from bottom of engine.

 - 6 aero modes. (eg slipstream mode 12.5% drag reduction)

Edited by gruntguru, 08 August 2020 - 05:48.

[brakedisc]

Great videos.

 

I have been pulling my brains out trying to solve a bodywork issue on one of my cars and thanks to the video and Mr Murray I have finally got a solution. 

 

I really will need to try and read his tomb, I have had it for months and admit to a quick look inside but it looks like a heavy read. How could the man that produced the McLaren F1 manage to design THAT Mini based special.? He must have got better Whacky Baccy in his later years.

[Bloggsworth]

As much as I love motor-racing, driving cars; and as much as I respect Murray's design genius; I really do believe that cars like this are totally pointless.

[pierrre]

these are all the active aerodynamic fan modes

[pierrre]

this is something i wrote on my page

 

Cosworth Gordon Murray Automotive T.50 65 Degree V12 3.9-litre, 663PS engine that revs to 12,100 rpm and torque is 467Nm at 9,000 rpm weighing 178kg

The engine that closely matches those numbers is actually a full race engine found on the Ferrari 333SP that is its F310E 4.0 liters 65 degree vee V12 producing 650 horsepower at 11,000 rpm and 447.5 NM of torque at the same 9,000 rpm

Prof.Gordon Murray did say that the engine is inspired by the Colombo engines found on Ferrari's that bare the 250 moniker which is the cubic capacity of each cylinder making it 3.0 but that would make it impossible to meet targets set out for the T.50

Set targets for the GMA unit are, lightest V12, highest rpm production car engine, highest output per liter, most responsive at an equivalent 28,400 rpm/second and has to sound the best. The engine is also a semi-stress member for the chassis

 

[gruntguru]

The McLaren F1 is widely regarded as the greatest sports car ever made. Having watched the videos above, I believe the T.50 will assume that mantle and will remain the greatest combustion engine supercar in perpetuity.

 

After all, GM is the guy who knows what he would change on the F1. He is also capable of taking full advantage of the advances in technology and materials that have occurred since the F1 was designed.

[Canuck]

As much as I love motor-racing, driving cars; and as much as I respect Murray's design genius; I really do believe that cars like this are totally pointless.

Define "cars like this": Cars that are ridiculously expensive? Low production? Cars that can exceed xxx km/h? Cars that are quick? Carbon fibre? Super light? Have an odd seating configuration? Some minimum combination of the former? All of the former? 

 

The point of the car is not determined by you (or me), but by, in this case, Gordon Murray. If you listen to what the man says, the point seems very clear. Even if one distilled it all down to "Gordon Murray is stroking his ego", ~66 people have agreed to pay GBP 2.8 million to see (own) the results.  Strikes me as identical to art patrons, only these ones are engineering patrons.

[BRG]

The McLaren F1 is widely regarded as the greatest sports car ever made. 

Mainly because it won Le Mans

 

Define "cars like this": Cars that are ridiculously expensive? Low production? Cars that can exceed xxx km/h? Cars that are quick? Carbon fibre? Super light? Have an odd seating configuration? Some minimum combination of the former? All of the former? 

All of the former.  Pointless bits of irrelevant engineering which tasteless rich oiks will buy and park in a heated garage and never drive.

[gruntguru]

. . . . . Even if one distilled it all down to "Gordon Murray is stroking his ego", ~66 people have agreed to pay GBP 2.8 million to see (own) the results.

Last I heard, they now have 100 buyers - sold out!.

 

Another good reason to purchase (invest) - these cars are guaranteed to appreciate rapidly.

Edited by gruntguru, 10 September 2020 - 20:58.

[gruntguru]

Mainly because it won Le Mans

 

I wouldn't say "mainly". Most commentators rate the F1's appeal based on the road car's driving experience.

[GreenMachine]

Mainly because it won Le Mans

 

 

Lots of cars have that label.  While it adds cachet, there is a lot more to that car than a race win.

[Canuck]

All of the former.  Pointless bits of irrelevant engineering which tasteless rich oiks will buy and park in a heated garage and never drive.

If we reduce things a bit, the "rich" part becomes both inevitable and necessary. Unless you happen to have a stable of first-rate experts, and facilities, that all work for free. It doesn't strike me as out of line that anything made with genuinely very few compromises will be far more expensive than it's more pedestrian versions. If you believe the video interviews, they selected owners that would be drivers, not garage ornament collectors, but that could be complete BS.

 

But lets get back to your "pointless bits of irrelevant engineering" statement. You'd be hard-pressed I suspect, to find anything on the car that didn't have a purpose. There are no wings or splitters and very few obvious ducts. The front and side profiles are so clean as to border on boring. The back end with it's giant duct fan...well that's another visual matter all together, but it's not without purpose if you believe GM is telling the truth.

 

Putting words in your mouth now: "Okay fine, so everything has a purpose and it's all thought out and executed to the nth degree but the over-arching purpose is still pointless!" (maybe you don't agree with that even). Well what's the point of anything beyond the hierarchy of needs? Where do you draw the line?

 

At what point of economics or features or perhaps your personal attainability factor, does something shift from "I appreciate that" to "well that's just bloody pointless"?

[gruntguru]

. . . . If you believe the video interviews, they selected owners that would be drivers, not garage ornament collectors, but that could be complete BS. . . . .

Reminds me of Murray's anecdote about the buyer that wanted to order a spare engine with his car.

 

Murray - "You won't need one - the engine will be very durable and besides we will stock a full range of spares."

 

Response - "No, I just want one for display"

[BRG]

If we reduce things a bit, the "rich" part becomes both inevitable and necessary. Unless you happen to have a stable of first-rate experts, and facilities, that all work for free. It doesn't strike me as out of line that anything made with genuinely very few compromises will be far more expensive than it's more pedestrian versions. If you believe the video interviews, they selected owners that would be drivers, not garage ornament collectors, but that could be complete BS.

 

But lets get back to your "pointless bits of irrelevant engineering" statement. You'd be hard-pressed I suspect, to find anything on the car that didn't have a purpose. There are no wings or splitters and very few obvious ducts. The front and side profiles are so clean as to border on boring. The back end with it's giant duct fan...well that's another visual matter all together, but it's not without purpose if you believe GM is telling the truth.

 

Putting words in your mouth now: "Okay fine, so everything has a purpose and it's all thought out and executed to the nth degree but the over-arching purpose is still pointless!" (maybe you don't agree with that even). Well what's the point of anything beyond the hierarchy of needs? Where do you draw the line?

 

At what point of economics or features or perhaps your personal attainability factor, does something shift from "I appreciate that" to "well that's just bloody pointless"?

I see that you have majored on the word 'pointless' rather than the word 'irrelevant'.  The fan is irrelevant because it will be of no use on the public road.  Which perhaps makes it pointless too.  

 

What is the point of any car that can break 200mph?  Where can you do that?  Not of the road obviously, nor on any track day venue that I know of.  This applies as well to all the lesser cars with top speeds of 150+mph.  It is just car makers saying that they have bigger genitalia than the rest.

[Canuck]

We can shift from pointless to irrelevant. That's a very, very simple argument. The dictionary definition of irrelevant is, helpfully, not relevant. The applicable definition of relevant having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand, so we can conclude that you view the T50 as not having significant and demonstrable bearing on the matter at hand.

 

It's pretty safe to say that GM's and your definition of the matter at hand are rather different. With respect, given that this was GM's project that he undertook of his own accord and not of some corporate or public demand, I'd say his goal posts are the only ones that mattered. That doesn't of course mean you have to like it or appreciate it or want it. It just means that judging the execution of a football shoe by it's performance for a ballerina is always going to be a dead end.Or a LeMans car's ability to haul a load of gravel.

 

I think a more accurate statement might be "I don't get this car's design brief", which is fair enough. It's not made to appeal to you and I though, in much the same way art isn't created to please someone else. Throughout the numerous T50 interview videos, he's quite clear: I wanted; I would only do it if; I wouldn't do it if x; I wanted to; I don't care about...

 

Among the things he's said he doesn't care about (and things that aren't published): 1/4 mile time, 0-60 time, top speed (looks, it's 980 kg and has 650 hp, it'll be plenty fast but I don't care what the numbers are).

 

In Canuckistan where we're currently governed by a "Diversity is our Strength" / "I do not know how many times I wore Black face" Prime Minister in his 2nd term, there is no public road with a speed limit above 120 km/h, which is across relatively short sections of the Coquihalla Highway aka The Coque (like Coke). I have not yet driven a production car, truck or motorcycle that is incapable of breaking this speed limit. Pointless and irrelevant performance from the most boring and pedestrian of offerings. 200 MPH? 150 MPH? 125 MPH? 100? 85?  What's the tipping point from smart to irrelevant?

 

To the T50's credit, the fan could very well be used on public roads - or road. If I'm not mistaken, the only time the fan is activated automatically is under hard braking at high speeds, which generates a substantial (10 meters) reduction in stopping distance from some Autobahn-only speed.

[Canuck]

I must be bored...for what possible reason would I care what you think about something I have no stake in? Yowza...my world has become entirely too small. I rescind my semantic arguments and criticism of your judgement. Bring on the weekend!

[gruntguru]

I wonder what percentage of car designs can claim to be 100% focused on function? Its a sliding scale with every recipe containing various proportions of ingredients who's sole purpose is to appeal to the buyer.

 

IMO the T.50 will be remembered as the ultimate useable driving experience - in a combustion car at least.

[SJ Lambert]

I, for one, am in love with thing!    

Edited by SJ Lambert, 11 September 2020 - 22:32.

[Greg Locock]

"I wonder what percentage of car designs can claim to be 100% focused on function?" VW Combi van I think. Maybe LandRover 90" Series 1. The original Mini was pretty single minded.

[404KF2]

All better cars IMO. 

 

The one this thread is about is only slightly more interesting to me than the supercars that the teenage drug dealers around Vancouver all drive.  An A110 would be much more interesting to me.

[desmo]

It sounds like the capitalist entrepreneur teen drug dealers have meritocrtically figured it all out. 

 

I really like the T.50, it's like the updated spiritual descendant of the Mac F1. You may ask why, but then you clearly don't get the concept of a sports car. 

[carlt]

"I wonder what percentage of car designs can claim to be 100% focused on function?" VW Combi van I think. Maybe LandRover 90" Series 1. The original Mini was pretty single minded.

 

sums it all up really

[kikiturbo2]

It is a rather lovely car with some interesting solutions. I would probably prefer some higher tire sidewalls, but otherwise it is a really fresh car in a world of heavy supercars with lots of wings.

In reality, it is a 4 wheel equivalent of really high end mechanical watch. Still, it is much more usefull than a 3 million Picasso on the wall..

[thiscocks]

Mainly because it won Le Mans

 

All of the former.  Pointless bits of irrelevant engineering which tasteless rich oiks will buy and park in a heated garage and never drive.

How sad. You think it's pointless because you cant afford it and drive it? I for one think it great that there is a new supercar being created that will remind people how good N/A engines and manual gear boxes are. The fact that marketing teams and the general public have practically no influence on the design makes it all the better. 

[BRG]

How sad. You think it's pointless because you cant afford it and drive it?

No

 

I think it is pointless because hardly ANYONE can afford it and those who do won't drive it anyway, they will put in a Carcoon in a heated storage facility where it will sit forever.  That is the very definition of pointless. 

 

Even if I could afford one, I wouldn't buy one (nor a La Ferrari or any other hyer or supercar).  Why spend a fortune on a car that you can't get over the speed bumps with out losing a £10,000 splitter?  What's sad is the guys who think having a car like that says anything positive about them.

[404KF2]

Yup.  Voiture de frimeur.

[pierrre]

it may be pointless but all 100 allocations have been spoken for within 48 hours of the unveiling...and next a more expensive track focused version that is the T.50s with more than 1500g of downforce

 

 

[Canuck]

To be fair, you've said

 

What's sad is the guys who think having a car like that says anything positive about them.

which is not the same thing as saying the only people buying these cars are doing it for the prestige/association/etc, but the rest of your posting about rich oiks and carcoons suggest that you're pretty close if not entirely of the opinion portrayed in my sentence here.

 

And that really implies the whole sour grapes thing.

 

The T50 doesn't have a splitter to knock off. I don't recall if it's capable of parking-lot speed bumps but that might be location-specific. The stuff they had in Dubai when I was there 20 years ago was the stuff of legend and you can find youtube videos of unsuspecting drivers launching themselves skyward with wonderfully catastrophic results (don't do 160km/h on a 50km/h road). Conversely, most of the speed bumps here are jarring if you hit them at normal speeds, but are not particularly tall. Perhaps this car has the lift-for-speed-bump party trick? It's not a particularly tricky car in that sense so I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.

 

If I was in a position where spending that much money on a discretionary transaction was reasonable and feasible, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'd drive it everywhere I could (I have many, many children so that's not as often as one might like, and we live with much snow much of the time). I'd probably skip gravel roads however. 

 

Many years ago, I stood behind the parts counter of my employer, soaking wet from riding my motorcycle to work in a downpour, giving the all-muscle/no-neck shop manager a hard time about not being man enough to ride in the rain. His response stuck with me and helped shape my outlook on a lot of things. He looked at me like the idiot I was acting and replied "I'm not poor. I own a nice, comfortable truck with a heater and windshield wipers. I didn't ride in the rain because I didn't want to and I sure as **** have nothing to prove to you or anyone else."  He lived (lives) his life the way he chose to, never to some arbitrary expectations of anyone else. If I expect to live like that, who am I to determine how anyone else should live theirs?

 

What will kill the driving utility of these cars will be the insurance. These are inevitably going to rise in value (as long as there are wealthy people who want them) and people will drive them and drive them and drive them until such time that the insurance premiums make it too nonsensical to do so (the downpour) at which point they'll be parked and appreciated occasionally until sold off as a massive return on investment. And who cares?

 

Whether Gordon Murray makes the T50, or he doesn't - the probability that I will own one is only very slightly different. So if there's no real difference to me whether he makes it or he doesn't, why should I be derisive about it if he does?

[just me again]

If Gordon's claim that the fan uses less energi than the fuel saving, in low drag mode(with fan at full speed to lessen "turbulence drag" behind the car"). then the T50 actually has road relevant teknologi, wich might also come in more "normal" cars!!

[gruntguru]

Well said Canuck.

Ludicrous excess is everywhere - gold plated toilets etc. Even car collections. Does Jay Leno need all those cars? Well I for one say he does and he deserves them given the fact that he shares them with anyone who appreciates them for their engineering, performance, style or merely for their uniqueness.

 

Is the T.50 a rich boy's toy? Yep.

 

Is it the ultimate example of a particular engineering direction? I think so and I appreciate that intent and the genius evident in so many aspects of its design and packaging.

 

In a Formula One Technical forum, I would expect us to be discussing the latter not the former.

[Nathan]

A beautiful car is certainly more useful than a beautiful piece of art.  Be sad to see art go.

 

But lets be honest, buying a 2 million whatever-currency limited edition supercars is like buying 2 million whatever-currency worth of shares, only you can appreciate the car much more between sales.

 

And even if I don't go 220mph, the trip from 40-100mph are always exhilarating.  I don't see it much different than buying more house than you practically need.  It's nice to have reserve

[desmo]

Will it really not go over a common curb or speed bump without getting damaged?  If yes, it isn't a road car, but a ridiculous toy. I kind of doubt GM would design one of those and market it as a road car.

[JacnGille]

Will it really not go over a common curb or speed bump without getting damaged?  If yes, it isn't a road car, but a ridiculous toy. I kind of doubt GM would design one of those and market it as a road car.

The first Chevy Vegas had rear suspension bolts which were so low to the ground that you couldn't take the cars to most drive thru car washes.  

[BRG]

The first Chevy Vegas had rear suspension bolts which were so low to the ground that you couldn't take the cars to most drive thru car washes.  

 

NOW you tell me?  i drove one of those at 80mph on a Canadian dirt road with yumps in it, coming back from the GP at Mosport.  

[pierrre]

the cosworth engine on the t.50 is really something else

 

[gruntguru]

Yes, can't wait to hear the real thing at 12,000 rpm.

 

The narrator muses about possible unconventional firing orders to enhance midrange torque. I don't buy into that nonsense - the gains are marginal if you look at Renault's research and the compromises in engine vibration wouldn't fly with Gordon Murray. Of course this engine also has VVT on inlet and exhaust - not allowed on F1 engines.

[pierrre]

Yes, can't wait to hear the real thing at 12,000 rpm.

 

The narrator muses about possible unconventional firing orders to enhance midrange torque. I don't buy into that nonsense - the gains are marginal if you look at Renault's research and the compromises in engine vibration wouldn't fly with Gordon Murray. Of course this engine also has VVT on inlet and exhaust - not allowed on F1 engines.

v12 exhaust rearrangement, rather than the conventional having three exhaust outlets side by side of each other share the same three into one segment of a twelve into four, instead the exhaust port is one over the other in sharing a three into one system. this hints at a possible change in firing order strategy without changing the crankshaft angle so this does not effect vibrations. renault f1 did this in more extremes by resorting to changing the crank angles to match inlet timing, sacrificing vibrations

[Greg Locock]

No, if you change the firing order on a i6 then it does affects TVs. We did it. A v12 would be the same.

[gruntguru]

I opened my mouth too soon on firing order. Looking at the video at 7:28 you can see the headers on the left bank with 1,3,5 sharing a collector and 2,4,6 the other. Definitely not the usual 153624 firing order.