RE: Gordon Murray Automotive previews F1 successor
Discussion
Equus said:
Does anyone (GetCarter?) have the actual patent numbers, or better still, links to the patents themselves, for what GMD believe to be the unique IP associated with the concept? No mention of them on either the GMD or specific iStream websites.
All looks like a lot of iHype, to me.
I don't I'm afraid. Might be a lot of iHype (personally I don't think so). But it's made many millions so far and will make many many millions more in future for the tiny, but very talented British Car industry.All looks like a lot of iHype, to me.
GM has made a point of sourcing purely British suppliers for the T50. (unless there is literarily nobody that can produce/machine the parts). He was saying yesterday how immensely talented and innovative the UK was. The best place in the world to live and make cars - it's only problem, the people who just try and knock it. He hates negativity, and rewards enthusiasm.
He was saying how impressed he is with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp16NCEez5M
GetCarter said:
Equus said:
Does anyone (GetCarter?) have the actual patent numbers, or better still, links to the patents themselves, for what GMD believe to be the unique IP associated with the concept? No mention of them on either the GMD or specific iStream websites.
All looks like a lot of iHype, to me.
I don't I'm afraid. Might be a lot of iHype (personally I don't think so). But it's made many millions so far and will make many many millions more in future for the tiny, but very talented British Car industry.All looks like a lot of iHype, to me.
GM has made a point of sourcing purely British suppliers for the T50. (unless there is literarily nobody that can produce/machine the parts). He was saying yesterday how immensely talented and innovative the UK was. The best place in the world to live and make cars - it's only problem, the people who just try and knock it. He hates negativity, and rewards enthusiasm.
He was saying how impressed he is with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp16NCEez5M
GetCarter said:
I don't I'm afraid. Might be a lot of iHype (personally I don't think so).
OK. So I did a quick search myself. The claims for the iStream chassis patent are as follows. As I read it, the primary claim (1) is that the chassis must be tubular with BONDED panels of composite sheet AND the composite sheet must be comprised at least partly of unidirectional fibres.
... so if you use BID panels, you would bypass the patent.
the patent claims said:
1. A chassis for a vehicle, comprising a framework of interconnected tubular sections and at least one composite sheet bonded to the framework, at least part of the composite sheet being of unidirectional fibres.
2. A chassis according to claim 1 in which the tubular sections are hollow.
3. A chassis according to claim 1 or claim 2 in which the sheet is non-flat.
4. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the sheet has a concave geometry.
5. A chassis according to claim 4 in which the sheet comprises a tub.
6. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the sheet is composed of a plurality of sections.
7. A chassis according to claim 6 in which the sections are joined by a method allowing a positional tolerance.
8. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the part of the composite sheet being of unidirectional fibres extends obliquely rearwardly from one side of the chassis toward another side, the fibres also being oriented obliquely rearwardly in the same sense.
9. A chassis according to claim 8 in which the part extends from a tubular : * section on one side of the chassis.
10. A chassis according to claim 8 or claim 9 in which the part extends to a : further tubular section on another side of the chassis.
11. A chassis according to any one of claims 8 to 10 in which the composite sheet comprises a further part of unidirectional fibres, extending obtiquely rearwardly from the another side of the chassis toward the one side, the fibres also being oriented obliquely rearwardly in the same sense.
12. A chassis according to claim 11 in which the further part extends from the further tubular section on the other side of the chassis.
13. A chassis according to claim 8 or claim 9 in which the further part extends to the tubular section on the one side of the chassis.
14. A chassis according to claim 11 in which the part and the further part overlap.
15. A chassis according to any one of claims 11 to 14 in which the part and the further part are arranged symmetrically relative to a central axis of the chassis.
16. A chassis according to claim 15 in which the part and the further part are located in substantially mirror-image locations relative to the central axis of the chassis.
17. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims further comprising an engine mounted thereon.
18. A chassis according to claim 17 in which the engine is mounted on an underside of the chassis.
19. A vehicle comprising a chassis according to any one of the preceding * . : claims.
20. A chassis for a vehicle substantially as described herein with reference to : .. and/or as described in the accompanying figures.
21. A method of making a chassis for a vehicle substantially as described : *** herein with reference to and/or as described in the accompanying figures. * S S * * S.
2. A chassis according to claim 1 in which the tubular sections are hollow.
3. A chassis according to claim 1 or claim 2 in which the sheet is non-flat.
4. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the sheet has a concave geometry.
5. A chassis according to claim 4 in which the sheet comprises a tub.
6. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the sheet is composed of a plurality of sections.
7. A chassis according to claim 6 in which the sections are joined by a method allowing a positional tolerance.
8. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the part of the composite sheet being of unidirectional fibres extends obliquely rearwardly from one side of the chassis toward another side, the fibres also being oriented obliquely rearwardly in the same sense.
9. A chassis according to claim 8 in which the part extends from a tubular : * section on one side of the chassis.
10. A chassis according to claim 8 or claim 9 in which the part extends to a : further tubular section on another side of the chassis.
11. A chassis according to any one of claims 8 to 10 in which the composite sheet comprises a further part of unidirectional fibres, extending obtiquely rearwardly from the another side of the chassis toward the one side, the fibres also being oriented obliquely rearwardly in the same sense.
12. A chassis according to claim 11 in which the further part extends from the further tubular section on the other side of the chassis.
13. A chassis according to claim 8 or claim 9 in which the further part extends to the tubular section on the one side of the chassis.
14. A chassis according to claim 11 in which the part and the further part overlap.
15. A chassis according to any one of claims 11 to 14 in which the part and the further part are arranged symmetrically relative to a central axis of the chassis.
16. A chassis according to claim 15 in which the part and the further part are located in substantially mirror-image locations relative to the central axis of the chassis.
17. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims further comprising an engine mounted thereon.
18. A chassis according to claim 17 in which the engine is mounted on an underside of the chassis.
19. A vehicle comprising a chassis according to any one of the preceding * . : claims.
20. A chassis for a vehicle substantially as described herein with reference to : .. and/or as described in the accompanying figures.
21. A method of making a chassis for a vehicle substantially as described : *** herein with reference to and/or as described in the accompanying figures. * S S * * S.
Equus said:
GetCarter said:
I don't I'm afraid. Might be a lot of iHype (personally I don't think so).
OK. So I did a quick search myself. The claims for the iStream chassis patent are as follows. As I read it, the primary claim (1) is that the chassis must be tubular with BONDED panels of composite sheet AND the composite sheet must be comprised at least partly of unidirectional fibres.
... so if you use BID panels, you would bypass the patent.
the patent claims said:
1. A chassis for a vehicle, comprising a framework of interconnected tubular sections and at least one composite sheet bonded to the framework, at least part of the composite sheet being of unidirectional fibres.
2. A chassis according to claim 1 in which the tubular sections are hollow.
3. A chassis according to claim 1 or claim 2 in which the sheet is non-flat.
4. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the sheet has a concave geometry.
5. A chassis according to claim 4 in which the sheet comprises a tub.
6. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the sheet is composed of a plurality of sections.
7. A chassis according to claim 6 in which the sections are joined by a method allowing a positional tolerance.
8. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the part of the composite sheet being of unidirectional fibres extends obliquely rearwardly from one side of the chassis toward another side, the fibres also being oriented obliquely rearwardly in the same sense.
9. A chassis according to claim 8 in which the part extends from a tubular : * section on one side of the chassis.
10. A chassis according to claim 8 or claim 9 in which the part extends to a : further tubular section on another side of the chassis.
11. A chassis according to any one of claims 8 to 10 in which the composite sheet comprises a further part of unidirectional fibres, extending obtiquely rearwardly from the another side of the chassis toward the one side, the fibres also being oriented obliquely rearwardly in the same sense.
12. A chassis according to claim 11 in which the further part extends from the further tubular section on the other side of the chassis.
13. A chassis according to claim 8 or claim 9 in which the further part extends to the tubular section on the one side of the chassis.
14. A chassis according to claim 11 in which the part and the further part overlap.
15. A chassis according to any one of claims 11 to 14 in which the part and the further part are arranged symmetrically relative to a central axis of the chassis.
16. A chassis according to claim 15 in which the part and the further part are located in substantially mirror-image locations relative to the central axis of the chassis.
17. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims further comprising an engine mounted thereon.
18. A chassis according to claim 17 in which the engine is mounted on an underside of the chassis.
19. A vehicle comprising a chassis according to any one of the preceding * . : claims.
20. A chassis for a vehicle substantially as described herein with reference to : .. and/or as described in the accompanying figures.
21. A method of making a chassis for a vehicle substantially as described : *** herein with reference to and/or as described in the accompanying figures. * S S * * S.
2. A chassis according to claim 1 in which the tubular sections are hollow.
3. A chassis according to claim 1 or claim 2 in which the sheet is non-flat.
4. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the sheet has a concave geometry.
5. A chassis according to claim 4 in which the sheet comprises a tub.
6. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the sheet is composed of a plurality of sections.
7. A chassis according to claim 6 in which the sections are joined by a method allowing a positional tolerance.
8. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims in which the part of the composite sheet being of unidirectional fibres extends obliquely rearwardly from one side of the chassis toward another side, the fibres also being oriented obliquely rearwardly in the same sense.
9. A chassis according to claim 8 in which the part extends from a tubular : * section on one side of the chassis.
10. A chassis according to claim 8 or claim 9 in which the part extends to a : further tubular section on another side of the chassis.
11. A chassis according to any one of claims 8 to 10 in which the composite sheet comprises a further part of unidirectional fibres, extending obtiquely rearwardly from the another side of the chassis toward the one side, the fibres also being oriented obliquely rearwardly in the same sense.
12. A chassis according to claim 11 in which the further part extends from the further tubular section on the other side of the chassis.
13. A chassis according to claim 8 or claim 9 in which the further part extends to the tubular section on the one side of the chassis.
14. A chassis according to claim 11 in which the part and the further part overlap.
15. A chassis according to any one of claims 11 to 14 in which the part and the further part are arranged symmetrically relative to a central axis of the chassis.
16. A chassis according to claim 15 in which the part and the further part are located in substantially mirror-image locations relative to the central axis of the chassis.
17. A chassis according to any one of the preceding claims further comprising an engine mounted thereon.
18. A chassis according to claim 17 in which the engine is mounted on an underside of the chassis.
19. A vehicle comprising a chassis according to any one of the preceding * . : claims.
20. A chassis for a vehicle substantially as described herein with reference to : .. and/or as described in the accompanying figures.
21. A method of making a chassis for a vehicle substantially as described : *** herein with reference to and/or as described in the accompanying figures. * S S * * S.
Not quite sure what your point is.
GMD employing lots of people in the UK and selling iStream to major manufacturers in the Far East. What's not to like?
Turfy said:
NicoG said:
What, exactly, dictates SIX THOUSAND POUNDS for an Oil change on an Mac F1?
Harrods window cleaner charges Harrods more than he does the council estate around the corner*; shocker...- within 10 miles.
Equus said:
GetCarter said:
Not quite sure what your point is.
Quite simply, as others have said, there's really not that much novelty there. ... and that therefore there isn't any revolution waiting to happen, after all.
GetCarter said:
What's not to like?
The hype.We'll agree to disagree, having discussed with him at length exactly what he's doing and how it lowers costs, I feel there is merit and advance in the process.
Meanwhile.. keeping a UK car industry alive and employing young designers is a good thing, right?
Not so many doing that these days.
Equus said:
GetCarter said:
Not quite sure what your point is.
Quite simply, as others have said, there's really not that much novelty there. ... and that therefore there isn't any revolution waiting to happen, after all.
GetCarter said:
What's not to like?
The hype.If the system is doing what it's designed to do and the company is making money from it, allowing them to employ many skilled people and to design their own interesting new cars, then it's all good. Please take your negativity elsewhere, thank you.
thegreenhell said:
I would suggest that you are not the target market for this, and therefore your opinions are largely irrelevant.
If the system is doing what it's designed to do ....
You would be wrong: as I've said above, if the Yamaha ever makes it into production, I'd be genuinely interested, and I have a history of owning similar cars. I'm very much in the target market.If the system is doing what it's designed to do ....
Unfortunately, as I've also pointed out above, the system isn't doing what it's designed to do, because no iStream car has yet reached production (for the very good reasons outlined by Max, myself, and others... it's designed to fill a niche that doesn't exist in any meaningful form).
Despite possible appearances, I'm genuinely very much a fan of Murray's work - but I think he's committed the last decade to a blind alley, and the sooner he moves on from it, the better. Being optimistic - and on topic - we might perhaps hope that the new supercar marks the beginning of that, since it eschews iStream itself.
Equus said:
skwdenyer said:
...the “Ferrari GTO price” is about £210k.
In terms of 'progress', I also find it slightly depressing that we're talking about 'small' engine from a man who claims to obsessive about weight that's as big (in terms of swept displacement) as that in the Miura and LP400 Countach.Murray claims to be a huge fan of the Elan, so it would have been more relevant to produce something that filled that car's modern-day niche. I was rather hoping that the Yamaha might do that, if it ever makes production.
£2m limited edition trinkets that are doomed to spend their existence accumulating dust in the warehouses of rich collectors underwhelm me, I'm afraid.
I'm struggling to think of a market where he could inject something genuinely innovative.
If he really wanted to cause a stir, I'm sure a hydrogen powered sports car would surely ruffle a few feathers...
daveco said:
If he really wanted to cause a stir, I'm sure a hydrogen powered sports car would surely ruffle a few feathers...
He'll never do diesel, electric, hydrogen.Only ever petrol N/A.
Old school.
He's having a Porsche 904 built (from scratch) for him that will take 3 years to build... his comment was, "Hold on, I've got to be alive to drive the damn thing!"
The builder (who is also 71) said, "You say that but i've got to live long enough to build it!".
Edited by GetCarter on Friday 14th June 16:17
daveco said:
In reference to the Elan, Mazda have that market sewn up with the MX5. Not sure Murray could bring anything new to that market segment.
I'm assuming you've not owned or driven both?I have - I owned an Elan and an MX5 simultaneously, and drove them back to back on many occasions. I can say absolutely and categorically that they do NOT by any stretch of the imagination occupy the same market segment.
The Elan was, relatively speaking, a much more expensive car when new, and even with 3 decades between the original designs and comedy 155 section, tall profile tyres, it was capable of leaving the Mazda for dead, both in terms of handling and outright performance.
The MX5 is more fairly compared with the MGB.
Closest modern niches to the Elan would be the Alfa 4C and the new Alpine A110. It is this segment where it would be nice to think there might still be a little space for the Yamaha (particularly now that the Alfa has gone, and allowing for the fact that the initial novelty of the A110 will eventually wear off and possibly leave a little room for a newcomer).
But yes, fundamentally I agree with you - which is why, regrettably, I'd be surprised if the Yamaha ever sees the light of day.
GetCarter said:
He'll never do diesel, electric, hydrogen.
Only ever petrol N/A.
Old school.
He's having a Porsche 904 built (from scratch) for him that will take 3 years to build... his comment was, "Hold on, I've got to be alive to drive the damn thing!"
The builder (who is also 71) said, "You say that but i've got to live long enough to build it!".
Only ever petrol N/A.
Old school.
He's having a Porsche 904 built (from scratch) for him that will take 3 years to build... his comment was, "Hold on, I've got to be alive to drive the damn thing!"
The builder (who is also 71) said, "You say that but i've got to live long enough to build it!".
Edited by GetCarter on Friday 14th June 16:17
This is what I love about Gordon Murray: he's a legendary F1 designer who worked at the cutting edge and understands the technology inside out, but in his road car projects he's not chasing performance as his primary goal and he's not chained to that cutting edge. Instead, he's chasing ultimate driver satisfaction and pleasure above all else (including performance, which is a mere consequence or secondary goal). He's also not sucked into the whole "racing car for the road" thing and understands what's needed for a great road car. He also seems to have a lovely innate sense of engineering purity - just look at any of his leading Brabham or McLaren Formula One cars: they look so pure and free of fuss, both with and without bodywork on them.
I am exactly the same: ask me to sketch my ultimate road car and I'll concentrate on the basics for driver involvement and enjoyment. Likewise, if I had GM's resources I too would be shunning the world's Veyrons, P1s and 918s and have a 904, NSX, Carrera GT or similar rebuilt to original spec.
I'll never afford one of his cars, or probably even drive one, but it's just lovely to know there's someone making cars with his sort of vision.
RobM77 said:
Didn't Mazda copy the MGB's wheels and even exhaust note for the mk1?
I'm not sure that the exhaust note owes anything to the MGB.I think the wheels on my Eunos are effectively 7 spoke Miniltes with centre-caps to cover the wheel nuts.
The design detail that everybody overlooks on the MX5 mk1 is that the front wheel arches are pure Marcos.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff