Unpopular opinion: The GMA T.50 is a overhyped and ugly
Discussion
Right, here me out and I know this is going to blow up in my face like a fresh recruit with a grenade, buttt.
The GMA T.50 is getting A LOT of press these few days with the first cars being delivered. I am finding I just can’t gel with the design. I understand its designed for function over form, with huge focus on driver visibility and aerodynamics but it just doesn’t appear cohesive in design. The rear fan system is a great piece of engineering but the integration doesn’t work in my eyes. The front is better but too snake like, the 720s got killed for that kind of appearance. The top profile rake is also a little off.
Interior is mostly lovely but those side mirror screens look nearly as out of place as the mercedes infotainment units in Aston Martins.
Don’t get me wrong that howling v12 and manual gearbox are insane and hearing it at goodwood is stunning but I wish the design was more emotive.
Side thought, why is there such a focus on aero with the fans when its meant to be a focused road car where the driving emotion is to be felt in lower speeds? Doesn’t add up.
The GMA T.50 is getting A LOT of press these few days with the first cars being delivered. I am finding I just can’t gel with the design. I understand its designed for function over form, with huge focus on driver visibility and aerodynamics but it just doesn’t appear cohesive in design. The rear fan system is a great piece of engineering but the integration doesn’t work in my eyes. The front is better but too snake like, the 720s got killed for that kind of appearance. The top profile rake is also a little off.
Interior is mostly lovely but those side mirror screens look nearly as out of place as the mercedes infotainment units in Aston Martins.
Don’t get me wrong that howling v12 and manual gearbox are insane and hearing it at goodwood is stunning but I wish the design was more emotive.
Side thought, why is there such a focus on aero with the fans when its meant to be a focused road car where the driving emotion is to be felt in lower speeds? Doesn’t add up.
The styling is a matter of taste; opinions vary but certainly not everyone likes it and many people prefer the more conventional T.33. I think it's significant that the T.50 is packaging three adults and a V12 engine into a very small footprint, which inevitably leads to the cabin being relatively big for the overall size, which in turn constrains the styling. But I don't think the car is universally lauded for its styling.
It'll easily exceed 200mph, so some kind of aero is necessary when hitting the double ton on a narrow, bumpy, busy autobahn. So it's not really a question of whether to have aero but what kind, with Gordon preferring ground effect over showy, draggy spoilers and wings. The fan then makes ground effect more powerful and allows the downforce to be managed over the range of speeds (rather than growing with the square of the speed as it naturally would) and depending on what the driver's doing with the car.
Ultimately it's not hyped for its styling but because it packs a 650hp nat-asp V12 into a car weighing under a tonne, that's also a useable real car, not a pile of scaffolding limited to A-to-A blasts on sunny days. It thus resurrects the recipe of the fabled F1, but improving on that car's shortcomings, adding modern material technology, and going one step further in many key areas. That I think is reason enough to regard it as something truly special and compelling, even above all the other supercars around today.
samoht said:
The styling is a matter of taste; opinions vary but certainly not everyone likes it and many people prefer the more conventional T.33. I think it's significant that the T.50 is packaging three adults and a V12 engine into a very small footprint, which inevitably leads to the cabin being relatively big for the overall size, which in turn constrains the styling. But I don't think the car is universally lauded for its styling.
It'll easily exceed 200mph, so some kind of aero is necessary when hitting the double ton on a narrow, bumpy, busy autobahn. So it's not really a question of whether to have aero but what kind, with Gordon preferring ground effect over showy, draggy spoilers and wings. The fan then makes ground effect more powerful and allows the downforce to be managed over the range of speeds (rather than growing with the square of the speed as it naturally would) and depending on what the driver's doing with the car.
Ultimately it's not hyped for its styling but because it packs a 650hp nat-asp V12 into a car weighing under a tonne, that's also a useable real car, not a pile of scaffolding limited to A-to-A blasts on sunny days. It thus resurrects the recipe of the fabled F1, but improving on that car's shortcomings, adding modern material technology, and going one step further in many key areas. That I think is reason enough to regard it as something truly special and compelling, even above all the other supercars around today.
I understand how/why the fans (or just some kind of aero) are necessary, and the ground effect is a lot more seamless then some of the bolt ons a la ‘Ferrari SF90 XX’. Heck, we don’t want Jay Kay reenacting Mark Webber Le Mans ‘99 stunt. But I just wish it didn’t look like it has an F35 jet engine strapped to its back. It'll easily exceed 200mph, so some kind of aero is necessary when hitting the double ton on a narrow, bumpy, busy autobahn. So it's not really a question of whether to have aero but what kind, with Gordon preferring ground effect over showy, draggy spoilers and wings. The fan then makes ground effect more powerful and allows the downforce to be managed over the range of speeds (rather than growing with the square of the speed as it naturally would) and depending on what the driver's doing with the car.
Ultimately it's not hyped for its styling but because it packs a 650hp nat-asp V12 into a car weighing under a tonne, that's also a useable real car, not a pile of scaffolding limited to A-to-A blasts on sunny days. It thus resurrects the recipe of the fabled F1, but improving on that car's shortcomings, adding modern material technology, and going one step further in many key areas. That I think is reason enough to regard it as something truly special and compelling, even above all the other supercars around today.
For me the seminal supercars, such as the F1, should be as amazing to drive (for their time) as they are to look at. This does nothing on the latter for me - completely subjective hence the opening statement but I doubt I am too much of a minority.
pissonheads said:
For me the seminal supercars, such as the F1, should be as amazing to drive (for their time) as they are to look at. This does nothing on the latter for me - completely subjective hence the opening statement but I doubt I am too much of a minority.
And yet, i've read people on this forum posting their disdain for the styling of the McLaren F1, calling it 'bland', 'inoffensive' or even 'boring'. I love the F1 and am similarly fond of the T.50, wouldn't kick either of them out of bed for farting to be honest.. I don't think the T.50 has quite the same elegant simplicity as the F1, but compared to every other modern equivalent being built nowadays it's brilliantly refreshing for me. Without driving it (which will never happen!) I've no idea if it's overhyped.
Ugly... well I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I find almost all modern cars ugly to a greater or lesser degree. To my eyes the T.50 is probably slightly better than average for the type of car, but that doesn't make it attractive. I don't think styling is really the point though. I never thought the Mclaren F1 was particularly attractive, but again that wasn't really the point.
Ugly... well I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I find almost all modern cars ugly to a greater or lesser degree. To my eyes the T.50 is probably slightly better than average for the type of car, but that doesn't make it attractive. I don't think styling is really the point though. I never thought the Mclaren F1 was particularly attractive, but again that wasn't really the point.
kambites said:
Without driving it (which will never happen!) I've no idea if it's overhyped.
That's more the point for me. It's overhyped because it's just not relevant to, well, anything really. Of the handful they will sell I expect you'll be able to count on your fingers the number that actually get used properly, the rest will be minced around in cities by peacocking bellends at best, or parked in an underground carpark and forgotten about at worst.I'm very into driving and I'm very into cars, but this I could not care less about.
pissonheads said:
Right, here me out and I know this is going to blow up in my face like a fresh recruit with a grenade, buttt.
The GMA T.50 is getting A LOT of press these few days with the first cars being delivered. I am finding I just can’t gel with the design. I understand its designed for function over form, with huge focus on driver visibility and aerodynamics but it just doesn’t appear cohesive in design. The rear fan system is a great piece of engineering but the integration doesn’t work in my eyes. The front is better but too snake like, the 720s got killed for that kind of appearance. The top profile rake is also a little off.
Interior is mostly lovely but those side mirror screens look nearly as out of place as the mercedes infotainment units in Aston Martins.
Don’t get me wrong that howling v12 and manual gearbox are insane and hearing it at goodwood is stunning but I wish the design was more emotive.
Side thought, why is there such a focus on aero with the fans when its meant to be a focused road car where the driving emotion is to be felt in lower speeds? Doesn’t add up.
People said the same things about the F1. Hardly anyone says so any more.The GMA T.50 is getting A LOT of press these few days with the first cars being delivered. I am finding I just can’t gel with the design. I understand its designed for function over form, with huge focus on driver visibility and aerodynamics but it just doesn’t appear cohesive in design. The rear fan system is a great piece of engineering but the integration doesn’t work in my eyes. The front is better but too snake like, the 720s got killed for that kind of appearance. The top profile rake is also a little off.
Interior is mostly lovely but those side mirror screens look nearly as out of place as the mercedes infotainment units in Aston Martins.
Don’t get me wrong that howling v12 and manual gearbox are insane and hearing it at goodwood is stunning but I wish the design was more emotive.
Side thought, why is there such a focus on aero with the fans when its meant to be a focused road car where the driving emotion is to be felt in lower speeds? Doesn’t add up.
The thing about being a world renowned car designer with your own manufacturing biz is that you can be sure to sell everything you make. That being the case you can undulge yourself a bit by doing the things you always wanted to do.
It doesn’t really have to ‘add up’ to the casual observer.
It doesn’t really have to ‘add up’ to the casual observer.
GeniusOfLove said:
kambites said:
Without driving it (which will never happen!) I've no idea if it's overhyped.
That's more the point for me. It's overhyped because it's just not relevant to, well, anything really. Of the handful they will sell I expect you'll be able to count on your fingers the number that actually get used properly, the rest will be minced around in cities by peacocking bellends at best, or parked in an underground carpark and forgotten about at worst.I agree, the simplicity of the F1 has aesthetics to match the purity of the design of function over form.
The T.50 doesn't quite have that. It's still an amazing feat: function over form, weight and performance for what it is.
Perhaps there are other criteria which makes it more challenging as well e.g. safety and refinement (not sure, since I don't know that much about the T.50).
The T.50 doesn't quite have that. It's still an amazing feat: function over form, weight and performance for what it is.
Perhaps there are other criteria which makes it more challenging as well e.g. safety and refinement (not sure, since I don't know that much about the T.50).
Personally I don't understand the appeal of this car at all.
I understand an Ultima, Ferrari, Lamborghini, or say Pagani as just daft examples of cars that have hyper attributes but the T.50, maybe it's because it seems so boring and accomplished, there is no sacrifice to get the hyper attribute that makes a statement. Apart from cost but that's the easy bit sticking a big fan on the back isn't exciting.
The brand is obviously an attribute you pay for but I'm not sure how many normal people are inspired to the point of wow look at them jealousy for GMA like with others, which is pretty sad.
It's a weird one but I am not sure there is another car that competes for most subjectively boring accomplished hyper car. My friends brother works for GMA and he gets so excited about the T.50 etc but I just can't get on board.
I understand an Ultima, Ferrari, Lamborghini, or say Pagani as just daft examples of cars that have hyper attributes but the T.50, maybe it's because it seems so boring and accomplished, there is no sacrifice to get the hyper attribute that makes a statement. Apart from cost but that's the easy bit sticking a big fan on the back isn't exciting.
The brand is obviously an attribute you pay for but I'm not sure how many normal people are inspired to the point of wow look at them jealousy for GMA like with others, which is pretty sad.
It's a weird one but I am not sure there is another car that competes for most subjectively boring accomplished hyper car. My friends brother works for GMA and he gets so excited about the T.50 etc but I just can't get on board.
swisstoni said:
The thing about being a world renowned car designer with your own manufacturing biz is that you can be sure to sell everything you make. That being the case you can undulge yourself a bit by doing the things you always wanted to do.
It doesn’t really have to ‘add up’ to the casual observer.
The T50 is a marvel of engineering, but the styling is totally off. It's an ugly design that costs 3.5M!It doesn’t really have to ‘add up’ to the casual observer.
To me it seems that Gordon Murray is too full of himself, too arrogant, to not have partnered with a design house. Seriously, he could have asked Pininfarina, Bertone, Gandini, etc., to take care of the exterior design. Imagine what could have been a beautiful, amazing hypercar with a V12 that goes to 12k rpm and a manual transmission?
The ultimate billionaire's exclusive super upper hypercar will be if someone buys a T50 and sends it to Pininfarina for a plastic surgery.
I agree the sanitary aspect of it is an issue. That's not to say a hypercar shouldn't be accomplished but it should also have flamboyance and make us drool. Pagani are the kings of this, they may not be as involving to drive (if ever I would be so lucky) but just look at them and those interiors are bonkers!
Most petrolheads will only ever get close to seeing these cars at Goodwood or such like. Hypercars need to draw the eye and get 12 year olds to pin up posters of them on their walls. I can't see this car doing it, however amazing that engine and great that lightweight chassis is.
Most petrolheads will only ever get close to seeing these cars at Goodwood or such like. Hypercars need to draw the eye and get 12 year olds to pin up posters of them on their walls. I can't see this car doing it, however amazing that engine and great that lightweight chassis is.
I sorta get where the OP is coming from; the front (very clean) and back (the one part that is messy, even if it is functional) are a bit disjointed, and there's something not quite right about the passenger cell proportions.
But I like that there's a supercar, in 2024, that isn't a dialled-to-11 visual drama queen, and that seems in keeping with GMA's overall shtick.
More generally, I can't help but feel that the hype train is lubricated by Murray snake oil. As accomplished as the T50 might be, if some other micro-builder had done the same we'd be praising it but gaffawing at £3.5m for something so basic and off the hypercar pace.
But I like that there's a supercar, in 2024, that isn't a dialled-to-11 visual drama queen, and that seems in keeping with GMA's overall shtick.
More generally, I can't help but feel that the hype train is lubricated by Murray snake oil. As accomplished as the T50 might be, if some other micro-builder had done the same we'd be praising it but gaffawing at £3.5m for something so basic and off the hypercar pace.
Kart16 said:
The T50 is a marvel of engineering, but the styling is totally off. It's an ugly design that costs 3.5M!
To me it seems that Gordon Murray is too full of himself, too arrogant, to not have partnered with a design house. Seriously, he could have asked Pininfarina, Bertone, Gandini, etc., to take care of the exterior design. Imagine what could have been a beautiful, amazing hypercar with a V12 that goes to 12k rpm and a manual transmission?
The ultimate billionaire's exclusive super upper hypercar will be if someone buys a T50 and sends it to Pininfarina for a plastic surgery.
There certainly is a level of arrogance - personal and intellectual- with Murray and the T.50. To me it seems that Gordon Murray is too full of himself, too arrogant, to not have partnered with a design house. Seriously, he could have asked Pininfarina, Bertone, Gandini, etc., to take care of the exterior design. Imagine what could have been a beautiful, amazing hypercar with a V12 that goes to 12k rpm and a manual transmission?
The ultimate billionaire's exclusive super upper hypercar will be if someone buys a T50 and sends it to Pininfarina for a plastic surgery.
But that's the point. Gordon Murray has a vision of what he believes a high-performance car should be in terms of its priorities, its characteristics, its engineering, its behaviour and its looks. And he has the resources to bring that to reality without compromising either for commercial considerations (he could be fairly confident of being able to sell whatever the result was at a 'cost-plus' price) or by bringing in outside influence.
The reason why it divides opinion is because it is such a personal statement. A lot of the greatest - or at least most interesting - cars are divisive because they embody some particular vision or ethos or preference, often enforced by a single person.
Porsche believed in rear-mounted engines and the peculiarities (dynamic and stylistic) that came with it. Colin Chapman wanted his cars to be as light as possible and tailored to combine excellent dynamics and performance with supple and compliant suspension. A small team at Citroen decided that they were going to engineer their way around every compromise that automotive designers usually encountered, and so produced a lineage of extremely odd, unconventional and yet very charismatic cars that split opinion to this day. Alec Issigonis (a man of such conceit that he was called 'Arragonis') had very specific principles for how cars should be designed, how they should look and how they should drive. And 60+ years later you won't find many people who have no opinion on a classic Mini - but plenty who will love it or hate it.
It is arrogance - in the extreme - to say "I think this is how a car should be and screw you if you don't agree" but that's the thinking behind the T.50.
Personally I've always been a fan (haha!). I doubt my entire lifetime earnings combined with all my current assets and savings would get me to even half the asking price, but I admire any car that exhibits an ethos and a vision and a personality, even if I don't agree with that vision or like that personality. Even the awkward proportions and technocratic styling are deliberate choices I can respect rather than Sangyong or BMW-like compromises.
As to "why all the active aero when it's supposed to be good to drive at low speeds" - my understanding is that the two go together. Murray doesn't like how other super/hypercars end up feeling inert and wooden at low speeds just so they have enough stability and control at their (largely irrelevant) maximum. The fan and the other aero on the T.50 lets it have suspension and steering setups that make it responsive and supple and light on its feet at normal speeds on normal roads while also providing the stability and low drag needed to safely run at high speeds.
Living up to my username, it's a very 'Citroen-esque' choice to come up with unusual and complicated engineering to get around a compromise rather than just fitting stiffer springs with shorter travel. I admire that.
pissonheads said:
I understand how/why the fans (or just some kind of aero) are necessary, and the ground effect is a lot more seamless then some of the bolt ons a la ‘Ferrari SF90 XX’. Heck, we don’t want Jay Kay reenacting Mark Webber Le Mans ‘99 stunt. But I just wish it didn’t look like it has an F35 jet engine strapped to its back.
For me the seminal supercars, such as the F1, should be as amazing to drive (for their time) as they are to look at. This does nothing on the latter for me - completely subjective hence the opening statement but I doubt I am too much of a minority.
the SF90 XX is among the ugliest cars around imo, I watched a video of the Spider recently and thought (i) that looks like a dogs breakfast, (ii= 1.8t, are you kidding and (ii) €1m for that, people must be insane.... taste is obviously a very personal thing. For me the seminal supercars, such as the F1, should be as amazing to drive (for their time) as they are to look at. This does nothing on the latter for me - completely subjective hence the opening statement but I doubt I am too much of a minority.
I think the T.50 looks good from the front and side, but the rear with the fan thingy is a bit challenging to my eyes. I love how the T.33 looks.
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff