127 replies to this topic

[Cirrus]

I know that this is far too recent for some TNFers but this interview with Steve Nichols is quite interesting.

 

 

 

[Michael Ferner]

I just watched this, too, and was going to post a link!

 

I never even knew Gordon Murray claimed to have penned the MP4/4. Why on earth would he do that?

[Richard Jenkins]

I just watched this, too, and was going to post a link!

 

I never even knew Gordon Murray claimed to have penned the MP4/4. Why on earth would he do that?

 

There's been quite a to-and-fro after Murray claimed it in Motor Sport.

https://www.motorspo...laren-mp4-4-row

 

Nichols and Co. responded

https://www.motorspo...er-mp4-4-claims

[Ross Stonefeld]

The real credit should go to the hobbled competition that year. McLaren had the top two drivers, Williams had a Judd, Ferrari didn't know what day it was, Piquet was off on a pension top-up at Lotus, etc, et al.

[Michael Ferner]

Has he completely lost his mind?

[Cirrus]

I know Steve Nichols pretty well - we've done a few longish drives together. Most of the time these days we talk about cycling when he's at my mate's workshop fettling his Van Diemen FF2000.

 

The guy in the video is pretty much the Steve I know - engaging, funny and totally devoid of ego.

 

I was at the Brooklands talk where Gordon Murray handed him the "Cease and Desist" letter. It didn't seem to trouble him unduly at the time and the fact that nothing has really happened since probably backs up what was said in the interview.

[john aston]

I interviewed Steve once -almost by accident , He was co-driving an Elan 26R at Thruxton and while talking to the car's owner (I was roving reporter) he said 'You'll want to talk to Steve I suppose?' . I had no idea who the Steve was and certainly wasn't bothered about talking to another 26R driver -one was enough. Then I saw the surname on his race overalls . What a cool , laid back and friendly guy he proved to be . 

[GreenMachine]

Great vid - thanks for posting. 

[Gene]

Great interview and sooooo Steve!

 

The full version will make a great movie and pizza night for the FSAE team. Undergrad engineering students will benefit not only from the portion discussing engineering and design as an integrated system and additionally, the much neglected subject of "ethics" in innovation and development.

 

If anybody has the chance to chat with Steve please say "Hi from Gene", and thank him for the candid interview

[sstiel]

Looking forward to Boxing Day for the unexpurgated version!

[Gabrci]

Great interview, thank you for sharing! 

 

Funnily once at Goodwood I saw the MP4/4 and soon after Gordon Murray himself and started to wonder whether it was him designing it or was it Steve Nichols. I concluded that my knowledge is lacking and left it at that. I certainly didn't expect to learn that it's not clear for them either! 

[Sterzo]

In a way it's surprising how few disputes there are over who designed which racing car. The number of people involved is always more than one, and ideas tend to grow from discussion, so it's a field made for conflicting memories. Ditto the architectural profession - don't ask who designed London's "Gherkin".

[Nemo1965]

I think it was a fine interview, I largely believe Nichols account but I did not like the ‘psychoanalysis’ of Gordon Murrays motives. On top of that: Nichols did not design neither was involved with the BT55, so to claim it ‘should have ended the career of his designer’ is cruel and unfair.

My five cents. Great stuff to watch and listen to, for the rest!

Edited by Nemo1965, 22 December 2021 - 18:43.

[blackmme]

It’s clearly a very contentious issue.

One of the parties involved seems rather more desperate than the other to prove that it was all his idea though.

 

The key things for me is the whole lay down concept.

I’m afraid I can’t cite the specific source (I’m running around with pre-Christmas stuff) at the moment but I’m certain that Sir Patrick Head had pressed Honda through 87 for an engine with a lower crank height for 88.

Honda went ahead and built it but obviously Williams didn’t actually get the engine!

This suggests to me that rather than the Brabham BT55 being the progenitor of the MP4/4 it was just a logical engineering / aerodynamic direction based on the parameters delivered to them.  

Of the rest of the car, the front suspension was really elegant and the gearbox was undoubtedly heavily influenced by long term Gordon Murray collaborator Peter Weisman 

But essentially the MP4/4 was a logical development of the MP4/3 in the same way that the very successful FW11 was a logical development of the FW10, the similarities are rather striking actually between the evolution of the cars.

 

The Haynes Manual on the MP4/4 (which is excellent and practically the best of them, and many of them are superb) is officially endorsed by McLaren and it pretty much confirms Steve’s view of events.

 

To sum it up only one party seems keen to take singular credit and it’s not Steve Nichols who from what I know seems mainly concerned with ensuring that everyone who collaborated gets credit for their contribution.

 

Anyway the MP4/4 was actually the end of one line of Grand Prix car evolution.

The most innovative and efficient Grand Prix car of 1988 was the March 881 and that car was the future not the MP4/4.

 

Regards Mike

 

 

Edited by blackmme, 22 December 2021 - 19:01.

[jgm]

Gordon Murray is not very flattering about Steve Nichols in  his big autobiographical book '50'. He comments 'I considered that he was lazy and wasn't a good leader from a decision making point of view'. And 'I had  a very good race engineer in Steve Nichols. Although he wasn't a good designer, he was a good race engineer.'

[blackmme]

Well I don’t know either gentleman so my opinion is completely irrelevant, however I don’t think that Steve ever ascended to a level of supreme design hyperactivity that enabled him to design a racing car destined to race in the Brazilian summer that managed to overheat in the depths of the British winter 

 

Regards Mike

[sstiel]

It’s clearly a very contentious issue.

One of the parties involved seems rather more desperate than the other to prove that it was all his idea though.

 

The key things for me is the whole lay down concept.

I’m afraid I can’t cite the specific source (I’m running around with pre-Christmas stuff) at the moment but I’m certain that Sir Patrick Head had pressed Honda through 87 for an engine with a lower crank height for 88.

Honda went ahead and built it but obviously Williams didn’t actually get the engine!

This suggests to me that rather than the Brabham BT55 being the progenitor of the MP4/4 it was just a logical engineering / aerodynamic direction based on the parameters delivered to them.  

Of the rest of the car, the front suspension was really elegant and the gearbox was undoubtedly heavily influenced by long term Gordon Murray collaborator Peter Weisman 

But essentially the MP4/4 was a logical development of the MP4/3 in the same way that the very successful FW11 was a logical development of the FW10, the similarities are rather striking actually between the evolution of the cars.

 

The Haynes Manual on the MP4/4 (which is excellent and practically the best of them, and many of them are superb) is officially endorsed by McLaren and it pretty much confirms Steve’s view of events.

 

To sum it up only one party seems keen to take singular credit and it’s not Steve Nichols who from what I know seems mainly concerned with ensuring that everyone who collaborated gets credit for their contribution.

 

Anyway the MP4/4 was actually the end of one line of Grand Prix car evolution.

The most innovative and efficient Grand Prix car of 1988 was the March 881 and that car was the future not the MP4/4.

 

Regards Mike

 

 

CFD analysis of the March 881. 

Edited by sstiel, 22 December 2021 - 20:44.

[Cirrus]

Great interview and sooooo Steve!

 

The full version will make a great movie and pizza night for the FSAE team. Undergrad engineering students will benefit not only from the portion discussing engineering and design as an integrated system and additionally, the much neglected subject of "ethics" in innovation and development.

 

If anybody has the chance to chat with Steve please say "Hi from Gene", and thank him for the candid interview

 

I said "Hi" for you Gene. Steve was pretty surprised that we knew each other. When I told him how, he said he remembered you taking him to meet Ron Tauranac. He thought Ron was an "interesting character".

[Gene]

Thanks for passing the message.

 

That was one of the most interesting evenings spent during my time in racing!

 

I’m a fairly chatty person, but disciplined myself to sit quietly, eat my Chinese, and listen to Ron and Steve exchanging stories covering almost forty years of motor racing history. I only regret not have a tape recorder!

Edited by Gene, 23 December 2021 - 16:30.

[davidbuckden]

Thanks Cirrus for posting - I'd never have seen this otherwise.  And I hadn't realised the Bamsey book had been so derided. Having read both the recent books by Murray and Barnard, I'm very interested in the era, especially as, while it was playing out, most of us knew nothing of what was going on in the background. I did pick up in these texts that there was some (subtle) dismissiveness of Steve which I found jarring.  I say this because it's hard to believe that someone with his track record prior to the MP4/4 would be just stooging around the place and given to laziness and ineffectual working. What the video helps to confirm is that Steve seems to be the sort of bloke who isn't all about ego and blowing his own trumpet - this might explain (but not excuse) why others might have perceived an open door through which to appropriate credit for his achievements. He certainly comes over as very straightforward and likable. 

 

Regarding Gordon, he has evolved into a sort of Saint, such that we might feel uncomfortable about any criticism of him. His own achievements are spectacular. His pre-BT55 Brabhams for example being amongst the most charismatic and attractive F1 cars of all time - though even with such cars, it's as well to recognise that whilst one man may well conceive an overall design, it takes a talented team of detail-designers/engineers to turn the idea into a functioning, successful reality. And by '87 I would have thought that Gordon would see what he was laying down for McLaren's future operations as his primary focus, (with outcomes of which he may be very proud), not needing to assume responsibility for a single car currently being developed.

 

Looking forward to Boxing Day with added enthusiasm now!

[DogEarred]

This thread has reminded me of an observation I made to myself a long time ago and had forgotten about.

I secured a contract in the design office of an F1 team where Steve was Chief Designer or some such. I was just a minion and had little direct contact with him except for the occasional greeting.
But I did sit near his office & was in a good position to observe his MO.

He spent a good deal of time wandering around the DO, engaging in what were obviously social conversations rather than work related.
Even when in his office, he seemed to spend a great deal of time on telephone calls, again seemingly social.

Just observations - I’ve no axe to grind whatsoever - he’s obviously a very likeable person & I wish I could have got to know him.

[sstiel]

The unabridged version of the interview with Steve Nichols...

[jcbc3]

Well, the 1990 letter kinda support the Nichols view over Murrays. I.e. it's not some later stuff Nichols has made up to claim credit but most of the McLaren design team saying so at the time.

[Peeko]

But essentially the MP4/4 was a logical development of the MP4/3 in the same way that the very successful FW11 was a logical development of the FW10, the similarities are rather striking actually between the evolution of the cars.

 

 

The 4/4 looks like the 4/3 went on a weight loss program and trained over the winter. As you said several parts of the car are very similar (rear wing, side pods, front wing endplates, etc...).

 

You can even see characteristics of the the 4/2c in the 4/4.

[john aston]

I watched the interview and remain bemused . Why did it  matter so much - if it did at all - to GM that he designed the car solo ? I didn't buy the SN argument that GM needed the kudos to attract investors .  Why ? He had an amazing record enough with Brabham, the F1 road car etc  when he struck out on his own after McLaren . getting on for a decade later.  SN claims Ron Dennis had brought GM in to do other stuff than F1. 'like the road car' but surely its genesis was still in the future then ?  SN seems a very decent and plausible guy, with no real axe to grind and now in what I assume is semi retirement . GM has a justifiably stellar reputation , and his curiously frequent  usage of his honorary Professor status apart (why not the CBE ? ) , comes over as a hugely bright , talented and likable bloke.

 

But it's still handbags at dawn . God knows why , nearly 40 years later , it matters a damn . 

 

Interesting to see that Team Nichols has the advantage on the Wikipedia page for the design credit of the '88 car .  

[BRG]

It seems to matter to Murray a lot for some reason.  I was not previously aware of this dispute until I read the Murray ego-fest of an interview in a recent Motor Sport, when I immediately detected a strong smell of BS. 

 

It is understandable that Nichols, in the face of these claims, might take up the cudgels to defend his own record.

[piszkosfred]

I watched the interview and remain bemused . Why did it  matter so much - if it did at all - to GM that he designed the car solo ? I didn't buy the SN argument that GM needed the kudos to attract investors .  Why ? He had an amazing record enough with Brabham, the F1 road car etc  when he struck out on his own after McLaren . getting on for a decade later.  SN claims Ron Dennis had brought GM in to do other stuff than F1. 'like the road car' but surely its genesis was still in the future then ?  SN seems a very decent and plausible guy, with no real axe to grind and now in what I assume is semi retirement . GM has a justifiably stellar reputation , and his curiously frequent  usage of his honorary Professor status apart (why not the CBE ? ) , comes over as a hugely bright , talented and likable bloke.

 

But it's still handbags at dawn . God knows why , nearly 40 years later , it matters a damn . 

 

Interesting to see that Team Nichols has the advantage on the Wikipedia page for the design credit of the '88 car .  

I guess it hurt Murray's ego that his last car - the BT55 - was such a failure, not to mention, De Angelis died in it (not because of the car of course, but still). And as Ron wanted him as a tech. director not a designer,  perhaps he thought he won't get a chance again. 

[VWV]

 

 

But it's still handbags at dawn . God knows why , nearly 40 years later , it matters a damn . 

 

 

Reading this forum over the years, for some it matters what the chassis number/ID of a racing car!! What about who designed it?? Who built the car?? Creative people get no respect.

 

As a mechanical engineer for a fortune 500 company, I appreciate getting credit for my work. Most most of the time I work as part of a team, it does not bother me not receiving individual credit, but it sure is nice when given.

 

For me, motor sport has many appealing attributes. Its not just the competition between drivers on the race track, its also a competition between the race teams in designing/creating/running the race car on the track.

 

Sorry for the rant.
 

[john aston]

My point is why it has taken so long .  Or were the dramatis personae slinging mud at each other years ago , but in private ? And if not , why not , if it seems such a big deal now surely it would have been rather more important in 1989 ? Now it's just  two old guys arguing about what they did when they were young - and that is not a good look. 

[jtremlett]

My point is why it has taken so long .  Or were the dramatis personae slinging mud at each other years ago , but in private ? And if not , why not , if it seems such a big deal now surely it would have been rather more important in 1989 ? Now it's just  two old guys arguing about what they did when they were young - and that is not a good look. 

As Nichols says in the interview, it was raised in 1990 when the Bamsey book was published and Murray took all the credit and has continued since then.  So it didn't take long.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think it's because of the reputation of that car and that season. There doesn't seem to be a credit war on any other McLaren F1 car and they've been doing them for a while. I imagine most "no, the real designer was..." occurs when the car is a dog.

[Roger Clark]

Some people are still arguing over who designed the 1912 Peugeot. 

[Nigel Beresford]

My point is why it has taken so long . Or were the dramatis personae slinging mud at each other years ago , but in private ? And if not , why not , if it seems such a big deal now surely it would have been rather more important in 1989 ? Now it's just two old guys arguing about what they did when they were young - and that is not a good look.

It has been going on for some time John, within the McLaren alumni network, just not in the “public” domain (if one could call a relatively niche topic discussed by the likes of us the public domain). The main thing that has lifted it out of the his-word-against-theirs dispute is the recent discovery of a copy of the letter to Martin Whitmarsh signed by the members of the DO - somewhat of a smoking gun given the seniority of some of the signatories.

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 29 December 2021 - 11:45.

[Doug Nye]

I can confirm from personal experience that the weight of contemporary McLaren staff recollections as expressed to me over many years absolutely support Steve's modestly-expressed - indeed for many years reluctantly-expressed - view of the truth of the MP4/4's genesis.  

 

I have always struggled to reconcile this with my enduring personal respect and admiration for Gordon - although he is certainly renowned amongst colleagues and associates for occasionally airily-expressing quite colossal self-regard.  

 

I think I remember a mischievous - but recognisable - line published in 'Autocar' reading "Gordon Murray is in danger of turning himself into a complete cult".  Ignore that proclivity - and he's a good guy too, and a supremely talented one with a still towering track record of design achievement and innovation. 

 

I guess that having grown up as a Scots-derived English-speaker in an Afrikaans-dominated country really can't have been easy... He once told me that he recalled South Africa's apartheid split as being not merely a matter of skin colour - national heritage could also leave one battling a perception of being innately inferior.  That will seed a need.

 

(Four brief paragraphs each starting with 'I'.  Crikey - maybe it's catching...    )

 

DCN

[small block]

As the old adage states, 'Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan'.

 

As a slightly more recent example, it's quite easy to find people who were involved with 1999 Le Mans winning BMW LMR V12, much less so for the 1998 predecessor

[guiporsche]

You only have to read Maurice Hamilton's oral history of Williams. That is also the book (or one of?) where Patrick Head says that for a long time he had been asking Honda to lower the engine's crank height. After Australia 86 (before the 87 season) Honda showed him the new, much lower sump but Ducarouge insisted that the old engine would do. 

 

That shots down Murray's line that he was the one asking Honda to make a lower engine. Where he most certainly has credit is in getting Weismann to do a new gearbox to suit the engine, just like he had done for the BT55. Without that, the MP4/4 would be a sort of more rigid Lotus-aero wise. So the way I see it, both parties contributed to the making of the car but probably  Nichols and his aides to a greater degree than Murray.

On the one hand, the tendency to do lower and lower cars is evident by looking at late 80s state of the art: the 86 and 87 Williams and the new v6 '87 Ferrari are good examples, as was on the other end of the spectrum... the AGS.

On the other hand, I only wonder what Gordon was doing at Mclaren if he had no input into the car whatsoever besides giving some 'suggestions'. Nichols tells the story of Barnard allegedly making copies of Mclaren documents but then finds it (ironically, I suppose) surprising that Murray would bring any with him of the BT55... 

[SGM]

What suprised me is the tone of the letter from the McLaren staff to Martin Whitmarsh. It is understandable if the Bamsey book was inaccurate they wouldn't be happy with the author, but the certainly didn't hold back on their assessment of Murray. It leads me to think that he wasn't popular with the design staff prior to the book and it's release perhaps brought things to a head?

[Cirrus]

 

I think Gordon Murray's enduring legacy at McLaren was the F1 road car. It updated what was perceived as being a "Supercar" at the time.

Edited by Cirrus, 31 December 2021 - 17:47.

[Roger Clark]

This may b of interest to anybody who hasn't seen it.

 

[cpbell]

This may b of interest to anybody who hasn't seen it.

 

That makes it sound as though it was Murray that provided the idea, which I suspect is correct.

[Roger Clark]

That’s what I thought. Whenever there’s a dispute like this I look for common ground, some way that they could both be right, while making allowances for antipathy between them. Is it possible that Murray was working in a similar way to Chapman in his later years, setting out general concepts but leaving the detail?

[AllanL]

As a one-time engineer, I was slightly puzzled to hear Gordon make claims in an interview at a Revival that the carbon fibre reinforced panels in the BT49 showed that he had beaten the McLaren MP4/1 breakthrough carbon fibre chassis design to the punch.

 

The issue in the use of carbon fibre in F1 had been seen to be the fact that carbon fibre is strong in tension but not in compression. The breakthrough with the MP4/1, by McLaren and their Hercules chassis manufacturers, was to lay down sheets of fibre in the chassis in such a way that the loads were primarily spread along tensioned fibres. John Watson performed a very persuasive stress test at Monza.

 

I always thought that the totally carbon fibre MP4/1 chassis was more than a step beyond the use of fibre reinforced panels, in an otherwise aluminium chassis, such as the BT49.

 

As has been said above, he has always been quite charming when spoken to by scruffs such as my son and myself at sundry Goodwood events.

 

Can you say nowt so odd as folk these days?

[PayasYouRace]

In a way it's surprising how few disputes there are over who designed which racing car. The number of people involved is always more than one, and ideas tend to grow from discussion, so it's a field made for conflicting memories. Ditto the architectural profession - don't ask who designed London's "Gherkin".

Never mind the fact that the drawings will have their authors and approvers as signatories on them. It’s a very auditable trail.

[blackmme]

I mentioned a few posts ago about how good the Haynes MP4/4 ‘Manual’ is. I managed to grab a few minutes earlier and didn’t read much that disputes or challenges much of what has been chewed over in this thread.

As one poster succinctly put it in the case of the MP4/4 ‘success has many parents’ and undoubtedly that is the case with this most successful of racing cars. In terms of the argument of the cars inception though only one person seems to be claiming it as his singular vision and to do so does not in my (very humble) opinion do him much credit.
As Doug says earlier it’s quite odd because his own achievements are significant enough to require no artificial embellishments.
The poster above mentioned about Gordon claiming that he was the originator of thinking about Carbon Fibre in F1 when I have read a number of sources referencing quite a few teams experimenting in the mid-seventies with CF including notably Andy Smallman at Hill with obviously mixed and unfortunate (to say the least) results.
I believe Gordon has also claimed in an interview that he invented skirts to create negative pressure with the BT44B that was subsequently copied by Alastair Caldwell at McLaren on the M23, thus setting in motion the ‘Ground Effect revolution’ (Peter Wright and Tony Rudd might be able to take issue with that).

So in summary Gordon singularly created the most successful Grand Prix car of all time after introducing F1 to Ground Effects that were at last effectively harnessed by the torsional rigidity of Carbon Fibre which he also introduced.

I think Doug’s post nailed it earlier….

Regards Mike

 

(edited to remove the most egregious of my grammatical errors)

Edited by blackmme, 02 January 2022 - 16:57.

[john aston]

And one of the most important parents of all was called Honda ...But just as in 2021 , others are greedier for the publicity .  

[chr1s]

So in summary Gordon singularly created the most successful Grand Prix car of all time after introducing F1 to Ground Effects that were at last effectively harnessed by the torsional rigidity of Carbon Fibre which he also introduced.

I think Doug’s post nailed it earlier….

Regards Mike

 

(edited to remove the most egregious of my grammatical errors)

I bet he's kicking himself now that he never fitted six wheels to one of his cars!

[stuartbrs]

As good as it is, you could also argue that a lot of the MP4/4`s success was simply down to the other teams preparing for the atmo cars, and 88 being a transitional year. 

[Nigel Beresford]

As good as it is, you could also argue that a lot of the MP4/4`s success was simply down to the other teams preparing for the atmo cars, and 88 being a transitional year.

Which, of course, McLaren were doing too, to pretty good effect. We shouldn’t be so ready to devalue excellent work by asserting that the competition was weak. If they were, then that was due to poor work or strategic planning on their part. As my old boss Mr. Penske says, “Effort Equals Results”

Edited by Nigel Beresford, 03 January 2022 - 00:39.

[Bikr7549]

That makes it sound as though it was Murray that provided the idea, which I suspect is correct.

There are several ways to look at ‘who designed the car’, or anything else for that matter. The general design idea or concept is one, the detail design to get it to work is anothet. Both are vital-without the idea there is nothing to design, and without the design effort to get it to work there is nothing to compete with. Colin Chapman is a good example, as I understand the way Lotus worked others often took the idea to turn it into a competetive car. I’ve worked for some genious level people but (with one exception) they had no skills or even interest is working on the seemingly endless cycles of analysis, build, test to learn how to make something work. Fortunately for me they also had no ego involved-it was always US that made it work.

Edited by Bikr7549, 03 January 2022 - 02:52.

[stuartbrs]

Which, of course, McLaren were doing too, to pretty good effect. We shouldn’t be so ready to devalue excellent work by asserting that the competition was weak. If they were, then that was due to poor work or strategic planning on their part. As my old boss Mr. Penske says, “Effort Equals Results”

 

I couldn't agree more. I guess what I`m getting at is it would have been nice to see another competitive Honda team and driver. I wonder how many races an 88 Williams/Honda/Mansell car would have stole. Anyway, fascinating interview with Steve Nichols.