RE: 50 years of Gordon Murray design!

[Rocket.]

You conveniently forgot to mention or appreciate the 2 sets of ratios in the Weismann and I've no doubt Quaife could improve some aspects of a design some 10 years later, it's called progress !

You also seem to have a Bee in your bonnet that it was an ill concieved lazy design, yet through gritted teeth you also appreciate it. Nothing further to discuss here.

[bleunos]

I totally agree, and I guess something 'clever' and different like the rocket is what I was getting at in my earlier rant.
There's such a demand for a low cost affordable FUN rather than fast track day and weekend blast type sports car out there that it's a shame nothing ever comes of all these projects. If GM had found a way to make an innovative brilliant handling single seater that's road legal, safeish crash cell, mechanically simple and reliable sort of like the rocket , say 600kg ish with a rorty 1000cc 100bhp triple engine (triumph?) for 15k basic kit he would've shifted plenty? Undercut Caterham, rival Westfield etc on price but with innovative materials and brilliant engineering build a brand from the bottom rather than the top down approach of McLaren? I guess it's less profitable...
As you say Chapman seemed to be involved in so many more real life cars as well as the super exotic. LOTUS were affordable at one time but now seem to be massively overpriced to me at least.

[Equus]

Rocket. said:

You conveniently forgot to mention or appreciate the 2 sets of ratios in the Weismann

Well, since you raise the subject, I would look upon specifying 2 sets of ratios in the Weismann as a poorly judged decision, if anything, so you won't find me 'appreciating' it.

"A car that can cover fairly big distances without being too tiring"? You seriously think that this was a high prioriity for the design?

It's whole raision d'etre was to be the lightest, most focused road car possible. So extremely did it pursue that aim that it had a rigidly mounted, full-stressed engine that would transmit noise and vibration directly to the chassis, and selected an engine produced naff all torque at sensible cruising revs. If long-distance cruising comfort was really a priority, then it would be arguable that those decisions were flawed?

I don't see it as a good compromise to design a bespoke, very expensive, relatively heavy and bulky transmission for the handful of occasions when such a car would be likely to be called upon for continental touring (yes, I'm aware that GM did take his to France and back).

There really hasn't been much progress in manual gearbox design for some time. Gears are gears: they're pretty well understood.

Rocket. said:

You also seem to have a Bee in your bonnet that it was an ill concieved lazy design, yet through gritted teeth you also appreciate it.

Neither lazy nor ill conceived, no. And no gritted teeth - I love the Rocket, I'm just not blind to the limitations of its design.

The concept - as I've said - was brilliant.

But beyond that basic concept, I think that the execution could have been cleverer, to the benefit of both performance and affordability. That's unfair, of course - every designer has their blind spots, but I think the Rocket supports the view that one of GM's weakness' may be a lack of perspective (and perhaps abillity?) when it comes to delivering affordability and ease of production in his designs ...which comes back to the question of whether iStream is an answer to a question that nobody has asked, because it isn't relevant in delivering what the market wants.

I think the Rocket was a missed opportunity and the production figures reflect that. Had it been cheap enough to gain more of a following, it could have kick-started a genuine revolution in lightweight, affordable back-to-basics car design, instead of being an interesting footnote.

[Cold]

bleunos said:

As you say Chapman seemed to be involved in so many more real life cars as well as the super exotic. LOTUS were affordable at one time but now seem to be massively overpriced to me at least.

That's your rose tinted retro-specs influencing you there. Cars from Lotus have never been cheap.

[rev-erend]

All new vehicle .. TVR

[Equus]

rev-erend said:

All new vehicle .. TVR

You know, I just can't get comfortable with this idea.

TVR's should be crudely engineered and handle with all the grace and poise of Peter Wheeler's labrador on wet lino. The idea of a GM-designed TVR is just wrong. It's a betrayal of all the marque stands for.

[rtz62]

Equus said:

rev-erend said:

All new vehicle .. TVR

You know, I just can't get comfortable with this idea.

TVR's should be crudely engineered and handle with all the grace and poise of Peter Wheeler's labrador on wet lino. The idea of a GM-designed TVR is just wrong. It's a betrayal of all the marque stands for.

Do I take it one is not a fan of TVR or has owned one? I'm not sure what you expected a manufacturer like TVR to do, chassis-wise, compared to the big boys, but a tubular steel chassis isn't a bad thing (unless I'm wrong, Ferrari 550/575's used a tubular chassis, albeit of different gauge iirc).
As for handling like Ned, Mr Wheelers dog, then the one(s) you may have driven probably needed setting up right, or suspension parts renewing, as my experiences in ownership have been far to the contrary. I've never owned anything pre-1991 Griffith era but to me they were well sorted, for what they were.
Using proprietary engines wasn't necessarily a bad thing either, although I, as many, may have preferred a Chevrolet LS1 or similar, but that's small manufacturers for you; they get what they can negotiate for the best (often read 'chewpest') price.
Whilst he AJP engines were a technological step forward, with a high specific output for a n/a engine, but poor valve train reliability gave rise to many warranty claims (since sorted by revised materials, or different cylinder head design)

I keep smiling when I read comments in the thread about how such-and-such a car (e.g. Rocket) could have been better if...
If we take that standpoint, we would still be driving around in For Model T cars, as they did everything that was required of them, and more, so what need was there for progress?
Gordon Murray asked a question of himself within a certain set of parameters, and then answered it, within those parameters.
We can't argue with his F1 record, or the fa that to this day the McLaren F1 is still one of THE best performance cars ever built (in my eyes, THE best, and the one I'd want to own)
If he had been taken on by a big design studio, yes his name would have been associated with many more designs, but how many of them would be remembered as being exquisite rather than run-of-the-mill?

[61GT]

kuro said:

My all time favourite F1 car.

+ 1, mine too!

[Equus]

rtz62 said:

Do I take it one is not a fan of TVR or has owned one?

One has owned a Griffith 500. One has driven numerous others, including Tuscan Speed 6's and T350's. One is a fan of the looks the noise and the interior design; one is not such a fan of the homicidal road manners.

rtz62 said:

I'm not sure what you expected a manufacturer like TVR to do, chassis-wise...

I expected at least half-competent suspension geometry. If you think the Grimaera generation cars were even vaguely acceptable, I can only imagine that your experience of 'well sorted' RWD chassis is very limited.

rtz62 said:

...a tubular steel chassis isn't a bad thing (unless I'm wrong, Ferrari 550/575's used a tubular chassis, albeit of different gauge iirc).

Do you understand the concept of 2nd moment of area?

The TVR's backbone chassis wasn't even fully triangulated: the bottom of the 'backbone' section was pretty much open and unbraced, making it effectively an inverted 'U' section of low 2nd moment.

FWIIW, The Ferrari 550/575 used a semi-monocoque centre section (of large 2nd moment area) with tubular additions front and rear for the engine bay and rear suspension. I think it also had a torque tube connecting the engine to the transaxle, whereas the TVR's relied on the (low 2nd moment area) chassis backbone and rubber mounts to react the torque between engine and diff. Proof of the pudding suggests that the Fezza's suspension geometry was also rather more competent in its design.

[anonymous-user]

Equus said:

One has owned a Griffith 500.

I wanted one so bad back in the day until I drove a friends supposedly 'good one' at a dry Bedford. The handling was extraordinary. I struggle to describe it really. I think to recreate it you'd have to unbolt the steering rack from the chassis! It was kind of fun though.