RE: Gordon Murray | PH Meets
Discussion
JxJ Jr. said:
Article said:
Murray pioneered fan-blown aerodynamics with the Brabham BT46B "fan car" in 1978
The Chaparral 2J of 1970 begs to differ.i know fans are round and therefore kinda look the same, but he's cheekily incorporated some design cues in there.
BigChiefmuffinAgain said:
I think this is a very pertinent question, as I think the answer is "Not much". He was involved with the new TVR, but whether that will see the light of day is still open to debate.
I guess my worry would be that there seems to be an awful lot of very new and very untried technology here which is being developed from scratch. Is it going to work ? Even at £2m a pop or whatever, 125 or so cars means a total budget of £250m to design, test, build and sell. That doesn't seem a lot....
I wish them luck but just wonder if they have done their budgets correctly
It’s sounds awesome, but I agree, the numbers don’t seem to stack up. I guess my worry would be that there seems to be an awful lot of very new and very untried technology here which is being developed from scratch. Is it going to work ? Even at £2m a pop or whatever, 125 or so cars means a total budget of £250m to design, test, build and sell. That doesn't seem a lot....
I wish them luck but just wonder if they have done their budgets correctly
Unless he’s sharing development costs with others?
Love it - as I do the F1.
However, are we really sure ground effect is the appropriate method of generating downforce in a normal road environment?
Got a feeling not many will be left after a couple of years of thrashing - one poorly handled crest at speed is all it'll take for full loss of traction, surely?
However, are we really sure ground effect is the appropriate method of generating downforce in a normal road environment?
Got a feeling not many will be left after a couple of years of thrashing - one poorly handled crest at speed is all it'll take for full loss of traction, surely?
Edited by Sway on Tuesday 10th December 20:21
Apparently working with Racing Point F1 to develop the aero
https://www.motorsport.com/automotive/news/gordon-...
https://www.motorsport.com/automotive/news/gordon-...
thegreenhell said:
Apparently working with Racing Point F1 to develop the aero
https://www.motorsport.com/automotive/news/gordon-...
How many F1 wind tunnels accommodate a bumpy road typical across the country? https://www.motorsport.com/automotive/news/gordon-...
Sway said:
Love it - as I do the F1.
However, are we really sure ground effect is the appropriate method of generating downforce in a normal road environment?
Got a feeling not many will be left after a couple of years of thrashing - one poorly handled crest at speed is all it'll take for full loss of traction, surely?
Will it even get a real ground effect? I could be speaking rubbish as non-aero person, but from what I understood the car would have to be extremely low, and that's unlikely to be possible on a road car (particularly one with a decent travel like he suggests). However, are we really sure ground effect is the appropriate method of generating downforce in a normal road environment?
Got a feeling not many will be left after a couple of years of thrashing - one poorly handled crest at speed is all it'll take for full loss of traction, surely?
Edited by Sway on Tuesday 10th December 20:21
Sway said:
thegreenhell said:
Apparently working with Racing Point F1 to develop the aero
https://www.motorsport.com/automotive/news/gordon-...
How many F1 wind tunnels accommodate a bumpy road typical across the country? https://www.motorsport.com/automotive/news/gordon-...
You are, of course, correct on that point.
C7 JFW said:
How lovely that he wants them to be taken out and thrashed.
I'm not sure he does. I remember him saying in recent interview they could have had a build run of 500 (iirc) at a much lower price point, but he wanted the car to be more special. If I was Gordon Murray, after all the dreams, thought, time, dedication and investment I'd put into this projeect, I'd want al that engineering to be appreciated and as many of these things thrashed as possible, but with only 100 being build that is unlikely. Although not by design, I think it's also one of the things that makes the F40 so great, that so many more have been driven and experienced relative to it's peers. big_rob_sydney said:
GM is a well respected pro, but even so, I would tread with caution. Possibly something from Koenigsegg or Zonda instead would be my preferred option in this space.
That's fair enough. But what Koenigsegg or Pagani offer a high revving NA V12 with a manual gearbox?Thanks for the story.
I had thought the same about the Muira - you know, why can't we have another 4.0L V12 in a 1000kg car ? Because with modern tech that should make enough power, and the lightness and delicacy and revs would be better than another Veyron. Very glad that it's being attempted by GM, probably the best able to carry it off.
Sway said:
However, are we really sure ground effect is the appropriate method of generating downforce in a normal road environment?
Got a feeling not many will be left after a couple of years of thrashing - one poorly handled crest at speed is all it'll take for full loss of traction, surely?
Let's be honest, if you were driving it fast enough on public roads for it to even begin to matter, then Darwin's gonna get ya sooner rather than later... and deservedly so.Got a feeling not many will be left after a couple of years of thrashing - one poorly handled crest at speed is all it'll take for full loss of traction, surely?
But it's a boutique trinket, not a realistic driver's machine. It's about bragging rights when you're throwing parties on your yacht. Of the 100 that are going to get built, 85 of them will almost certainly go straight into air-conditioned cotton wool, and few of the others are ever likely to be used anywhere close to their limits, except on track, so whether it works on normal roads or not is pretty much irrelevant.
172 said:
I dont get what the point of 2 different maps is.
An engine can only be mapped to its optimum or less than.
So each map is holding the engine back either at high or low revs
I'm guessing it's just a different throttle map and rev limit. Though you could change the valve timing to make it feel like 2 completely different engines. What I find confusing is that both "maps" will make the same 600bhp. Why rev over 9500rpm? Strange.An engine can only be mapped to its optimum or less than.
So each map is holding the engine back either at high or low revs
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff