RE: Gordon Murray Group unveils five-year plan
Discussion
Niffty951 said:
There's a slight bitter tone from people who'll never be able to own one above. Ferrari have never made an affordable car, but would the world be a better place if Ferarri didn't exist?
Enzo Ferrari didn't spend his life espousing small, and back-to-basics whilst building V12 hypercars for the mega rich.It's a question of walking the walk that you talk.
I really respect Gordon Murray and his engineering prowess. I'm also unmoved with the focus on exclusivity and premium yet again. I can't pretend that I know much about automotive engineering, but it seems to me that making hyper-expensive machines with exotic materials go zoom is far far easier than designing something truly game changing using 'normal' materials at reasonable cost. To that end are Colin Chapman or Alec Issigonis "superior" engineers?
Don't mean to diss GM here, I mean I'd happily sell organs for an F1, but the hypercar game is really quite dull now. The T50 maybe takes a different approach but the outcome is still 'faster than you'll ever be able to drive at the price of a new hospital' like the rest of them. To this old cynic they've become the automotive equivalent of Lolo Ferrari - just too much of everything bar good taste.
Don't mean to diss GM here, I mean I'd happily sell organs for an F1, but the hypercar game is really quite dull now. The T50 maybe takes a different approach but the outcome is still 'faster than you'll ever be able to drive at the price of a new hospital' like the rest of them. To this old cynic they've become the automotive equivalent of Lolo Ferrari - just too much of everything bar good taste.
Equus said:
I'd personally like to see a modern-day Elan, similar to the Yamaha prototype for Elise money (now that the Elise is going out of production and Lotus heading back up-market), but that's not going to happen under this production model and truth be told, Murray has never demonstrated any ability whatsoever to work to non-F1 budget limitations.
I heard him say in a recent interview that he'd like to do a lightweight, N/A, manual sportscar for less than £30k. I suppose in many ways the modern-day Elan is the MX-5, but it would be good to see a GMA interpretation of this. 
t load of money from this so fair play to him.While I am a huge fan of the T.50, I am not very excited about pretty much anything else.
The "Project Two", using the same engine and gearbox as the T.50, makes the T.50 less of an event, and at the same time - because they are only making 100 of these - it's still gonna be extremely expensive. Maybe it costs £1M instead of £2.4M, but the problem is that it's too similar to the T.50, so it's only ever gonna be seen as a consolation prize for those who weren't able to get the T.50 in time or couldn't afford it. And a £1M car should never be seen as being the second best.
Developing their own electric architecture is good, but it's again tied to the iStream and to small urban cars. Which to me looks like the thinking of an engineer, not a businessman. So far there has been not a single company that brought an iStream car to production and the overall interest for the technology has been mild to say the least. I think that investing even more money into iStream without having a partnership already in place with someone who is gonna mass manufacture the cars, is foolish and stubborn. Also, nobody wants ugly midget town cars. Everyone is buying SUVs, no matter how small the platform is, telling us that nobody likes to be seen in a funny small car if they can avoid it. The T.25/27 didn't work out ten years ago and it's even less likely to succeed now.
Although I am really hopeful all of their plans come to fruition, I don't expect that they will.
The "Project Two", using the same engine and gearbox as the T.50, makes the T.50 less of an event, and at the same time - because they are only making 100 of these - it's still gonna be extremely expensive. Maybe it costs £1M instead of £2.4M, but the problem is that it's too similar to the T.50, so it's only ever gonna be seen as a consolation prize for those who weren't able to get the T.50 in time or couldn't afford it. And a £1M car should never be seen as being the second best.
Developing their own electric architecture is good, but it's again tied to the iStream and to small urban cars. Which to me looks like the thinking of an engineer, not a businessman. So far there has been not a single company that brought an iStream car to production and the overall interest for the technology has been mild to say the least. I think that investing even more money into iStream without having a partnership already in place with someone who is gonna mass manufacture the cars, is foolish and stubborn. Also, nobody wants ugly midget town cars. Everyone is buying SUVs, no matter how small the platform is, telling us that nobody likes to be seen in a funny small car if they can avoid it. The T.25/27 didn't work out ten years ago and it's even less likely to succeed now.
Although I am really hopeful all of their plans come to fruition, I don't expect that they will.
J4CKO said:
Did you miss the bit about them sold out with a big waiting list ?
Or the fact the T50 is pretty much ready by the looks of it ?
Or McLaren F1 prices ?
it's interesting that they weren't sold out at the time that they did the reveal with various youtube videos etc but now slots are trading for £500k+ behind the scenesOr the fact the T50 is pretty much ready by the looks of it ?
Or McLaren F1 prices ?
I personally prefer the Valk but both are great cars
Jon_S_Rally said:
I'm also a bit disappointed by the 100 units thing. While I didn't expect (or want) them to try and make 10,000 cars a year, I was hoping they would do something more in the regular supercar arena, or something in the 911 area perhaps. At 100 units per model, I suspect the prices are going to be pretty extreme for everything.
Still, I wish them luck and will be following with interest. At least they're trying to do their own thing, rather than just chucking out the same stuff everyone else is.
There is the big issue of investment. Doing 100 cars is much less cash-hungry than doing ~10,000 cars a year (which you'd need to do to make any money in the "911" segment). You are talking about investment in the £billions to be capable for that scale of production, from component tooling to a new large manufacturing facility. GMA is a young company with limited resources, surely it's best to do a small project that can be actually delivered.Still, I wish them luck and will be following with interest. At least they're trying to do their own thing, rather than just chucking out the same stuff everyone else is.
I think you might all be missing something here.
GMA might not build any more than 100x of a vehicle, however GMD will be a completely separate entity and able to design whatever it likes. One drives the interest and money into the other and which way that goes entirely depends on the current vehicle sales climate. Scaling up operations to build more than 100x of anything takes a vast amount of cash and is a much, much higher risk - better for GMD to work for other companies on the smaller stuff that already do the high volume car creation.
GMA might not build any more than 100x of a vehicle, however GMD will be a completely separate entity and able to design whatever it likes. One drives the interest and money into the other and which way that goes entirely depends on the current vehicle sales climate. Scaling up operations to build more than 100x of anything takes a vast amount of cash and is a much, much higher risk - better for GMD to work for other companies on the smaller stuff that already do the high volume car creation.
adambcvg said:
Scaling up operations to build more than 100x of anything takes a vast amount of cash and is a much, much higher risk.
Not if you believe the GMD iHype (tm) on the iStream (tm) process, it doesn't.Its whole raison d'etre, allegedly, is that it can deliver moderate levels of production for minimal levels of investment.
Niffty951 said:
I'm not going to complain if there's another Koenigsegg, Zonda rival In the world. Especially if the focus is on values I hold dear. Driver involvement and lightness.
There's a slight bitter tone from people who'll never be able to own one above. Ferrari have never made an affordable car, but would the world be a better place if Ferarri didn't exist? If the McLaren F1 had stayed on the drawing board? Would you even be on a car forum?
Cars like this inspire people. Their job is to inspire the next generation and ensure the survival of values worth remembering.
People complained that going to the moon was a waste of tax money. If the space program had stayed as building ballistic missiles and satellites, would the next generation of privateer space investors ever have happened? It inspired a generation of science fiction writers, engineers, scientists & entrepreneurs, Elon Musk among them.
I am equally unlikely to own a T.50 in my lifetime as I am to go to the moon in my lifetime, but I hope generations to follow may have opportunities that would not have existed if these endeavours were never undertaken. They make the world a better place.
To me there is quite a big difference. There's a slight bitter tone from people who'll never be able to own one above. Ferrari have never made an affordable car, but would the world be a better place if Ferarri didn't exist? If the McLaren F1 had stayed on the drawing board? Would you even be on a car forum?
Cars like this inspire people. Their job is to inspire the next generation and ensure the survival of values worth remembering.
People complained that going to the moon was a waste of tax money. If the space program had stayed as building ballistic missiles and satellites, would the next generation of privateer space investors ever have happened? It inspired a generation of science fiction writers, engineers, scientists & entrepreneurs, Elon Musk among them.
I am equally unlikely to own a T.50 in my lifetime as I am to go to the moon in my lifetime, but I hope generations to follow may have opportunities that would not have existed if these endeavours were never undertaken. They make the world a better place.
Edited by Niffty951 on Tuesday 11th May 10:00
Ferrari knock out about 10,000 cars a year. If you are quite financially successful save up a bit and borrow a bit you could buy a Ferrari if it’s your dream. The million plus market is a whole other league of wealth required. I read that they reckon their is only around 1000 people globally who buy these cars.
Most of them will never see 5 figure mileage so the whole ultimate driving experience becomes a bit of a joke. Most will buy because they believe it’s the next F1 and they can sell for mega profit in a few years.
It’s a bit odd to claim you want to make this fantastic drivers car then aim it squarely at a part of the market that doesn’t really drive them all that much.
As for comparing it to the moon landing. What on any of these cars is a new and earth shattering technology? If anything it actively backwards looking which is why people think it’s fantastic (me included).
My first reaction was similar to those expressed earlier but as an afterthought, if it helps develops an advanced motor industry that trains & employs engineers, and helps the maker sell consultancy to other firms at the indulgence of the superrich car collectors, why not ?
Edited by Buzzfan on Tuesday 11th May 13:37
"The automotive future will be increasingly electrified and it's essential that we design the world's lightest, most efficient and advanced EVs.”
Oooooohhh, a Gordon Murray lightweight, fun to drive EV? Tell me more....
“our mission to be the world's most exclusive automotive brand”
Oh FFS.
Oooooohhh, a Gordon Murray lightweight, fun to drive EV? Tell me more....
“our mission to be the world's most exclusive automotive brand”
Oh FFS.
JxJ Jr. said:
forzaminardi said:
Who/what are the investors?
Mohr Davidow Ventures invested way back in 2007-ish, no doubt with dreams of the world's OEMs all licencing iStream and us all trundling around in T25/T27s, which clearly hasn't come to pass. They look to have invested further as part of the campus project and this, although the £250-300m (depending where you read) is a plan, which probably includes finding some of that investment from other sources later on.Edited by JxJ Jr. on Tuesday 11th May 10:24
https://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/news-articles/g...
Good luck to them - I do hope it is a big success. The goal to produce a 'superlight' platform, hopefully versions for both EV and ICE applications, is admirable.
Edited by TWPC on Tuesday 11th May 14:12
Edited by TWPC on Tuesday 11th May 14:17
adambcvg said:
I think you might all be missing something here.
GMA might not build any more than 100x of a vehicle, however GMD will be a completely separate entity and able to design whatever it likes. One drives the interest and money into the other and which way that goes entirely depends on the current vehicle sales climate. Scaling up operations to build more than 100x of anything takes a vast amount of cash and is a much, much higher risk - better for GMD to work for other companies on the smaller stuff that already do the high volume car creation.
Yes, this must be correct. GMA might not build any more than 100x of a vehicle, however GMD will be a completely separate entity and able to design whatever it likes. One drives the interest and money into the other and which way that goes entirely depends on the current vehicle sales climate. Scaling up operations to build more than 100x of anything takes a vast amount of cash and is a much, much higher risk - better for GMD to work for other companies on the smaller stuff that already do the high volume car creation.
And it explains that the silly 'exclusive automotive brand' tagline applies only to GMA. I think that brands do not aim to be exclusive (i.e. limit sales) for exclusivity's sake. Exclusivity can imply commercial failure (as discussed on the Citroen C6 'Brave Pill' thread and numerous other examples!). Brands may, however, end up being exclusive for sensible reasons, such as investing so much in the quality of the product that its selling price is so high that the customer base is bound to be small. Then, for the good of both your business (i.e. future revenue from ongoing maintenance of the cars) and customer relations (who are a small group you rely on for sales of future products) you may also wish to ensure that residual values remain high which leads you to limit supply of your product. Rant over.
The way I read this, perhaps incorrectly, is that the investment isn't necessarily there, but the shopping list is ("£300m is set to be invested over the next five years").
I also think setting 'premium' and 'exclusivity' at the top of your list of qualities is unattractive (to me, admittedly someone far too poor for all this) as they should be byproducts of the other aims rather than things you deliberately set out for - IMO.
I also think setting 'premium' and 'exclusivity' at the top of your list of qualities is unattractive (to me, admittedly someone far too poor for all this) as they should be byproducts of the other aims rather than things you deliberately set out for - IMO.
Will be interesting to see how they try to balance electric and lightness. They're very good at packaging, but the bottom line at the moment is that you need to package a big mass of batteries if you want useable range, so there's a limit to what you can achieve by stripping mass out of the rest of the structure and components. They're not electrical or chemical engineers, so they're highly unlikely to produce materially innovative electric motors or batteries.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff