RE: Gordon Murray Automotive previews F1 successor
Discussion
PH, the only car forum where a manufacturer can release an actual hyper car, only to be met with criticism and questions as to where you’d actually use a car like that in the real world. Gordon Murray releases yet another sketch of a car that will probably never see day light, and it’s hailed as the best car to ever grace the planet and will beat all others without doubt. 
fblm said:
What is iStream anyway? I've not read anything at all convincing in the years it's been touted as the next big thing. I get what it is supposed to achieve but don't get what the big revolution is that manufacturers arn't already doing. Composites over spaceframe and lean manufacturing have been around for decades.
As far as I understand from http://istreamtechnology.co.uk:An iStream chassis is essentially a hybrid structure consisting of a metallic frame (iFrame) and composite sandwich panels (iPanels). The basic concept is to use the iFrame to form a basic skeleton to locate all the local attachment points such as powertrain, steering, suspension and occupant seats etc. The iFrame alone does not meet the performance demands of a modern car, so we then stabilise the iframe by bonding the highly rigid (iPanels) onto the metallic members so they then act as very stiff shear panels.
The resultant Hybrid structure (iStream) delivers an entirely new lightweight automotive platform that meets all the demands of corrosion protection, strength, stiffness and crash performance at a fraction of the typical investment cost of conventional car platforms today. The simplicity of the manufacturing process means that the manufacturing energy requirements are a fraction of conventional stamp steel process, and requirements for factory footprint space are also far less.
fblm said:
What is iStream anyway? I've not read anything at all convincing in the years it's been touted as the next big thing. I get what it is supposed to achieve but don't get what the big revolution is that manufacturers aren't already doing. Composites over spaceframe and lean manufacturing have been around for decades.
Its clever hype for a stressed panel spaceframe (which as you say have been around for years), to suit a particular niche in terms of production numbers.The question is whether that niche actually exists to a degree that would be supportable.
From memory, I think it has been stated that the technique is cost-effective for production of between 1000 and 12,000 units per factory, per annum... so much larger numbers than most 'niche' manufacturers (TVR, over their halcyon years of Grimaera/Tuscan/Cerbera production, managed an average of 785 cars per annum, for example), whereas 12,000 units per year isn't enough to be of interest to mainstream manufacturers.
The Murray Hype Machine will try to convince you that it is 'scaleable' (another clever marketing buzzword) up to production levels of 120,000 per annum, but what that means is that you go off an build another factory producing up to 12K cars per annum, and that's neither particularly practical or environmentally friendly, in the real world.
In reality, the industry has been very slow and reluctant to adopt the system (GM has been pushing the idea for well over a decade and contrary to Get Carter's assertion, I don't think any manufacturers are actually in production with it yet - indeed with the exception of Les Edgar's fantasy, to the best of my knowledge nobody has even publicly announced an intention to do so).
As ingenious as Murray is, and as much as I admire the man, it's increasingly looking like iStream is a clever answer to a problem that doesn't exist.
Equus said:
Its clever hype for a stressed panel spaceframe (which as you say have been around for years), to suit a particular niche in terms of production numbers.
The question is whether that niche actually exists to a degree that would be supportable.
From memory, I think it has been stated that the technique is cost-effective for production of between 1000 and 12,000 units per factory, per annum... so much larger numbers than most 'niche' manufacturers (TVR, over their halcyon years of Grimaera/Tuscan/Cerbera production, managed an average of 785 cars per annum, for example), whereas 12,000 units per year isn't enough to be of interest to mainstream manufacturers.
The Murray Hype Machine will try to convince you that it is 'scaleable' (another clever marketing buzzword) up to production levels of 120,000 per annum, but what that means is that you go off an build another factory producing up to 12K cars per annum, and that's neither particularly practical or environmentally friendly, in the real world.
In reality, the industry has been very slow and reluctant to adopt the system (GM has been pushing the idea for well over a decade and contrary to Get Carter's assertion, I don't think any manufacturers are actually in production with it yet - indeed with the exception of Les Edgar's fantasy, to the best of my knowledge nobody has even publicly announced an intention to do so).
As ingenious as Murray is, and as much as I admire the man, it's increasingly looking like iStream is a clever answer to a problem that doesn't exist.
A well thought out, reasoned, interesting post based in fact like yours has no place on PH. Expect a ban incoming The question is whether that niche actually exists to a degree that would be supportable.
From memory, I think it has been stated that the technique is cost-effective for production of between 1000 and 12,000 units per factory, per annum... so much larger numbers than most 'niche' manufacturers (TVR, over their halcyon years of Grimaera/Tuscan/Cerbera production, managed an average of 785 cars per annum, for example), whereas 12,000 units per year isn't enough to be of interest to mainstream manufacturers.
The Murray Hype Machine will try to convince you that it is 'scaleable' (another clever marketing buzzword) up to production levels of 120,000 per annum, but what that means is that you go off an build another factory producing up to 12K cars per annum, and that's neither particularly practical or environmentally friendly, in the real world.
In reality, the industry has been very slow and reluctant to adopt the system (GM has been pushing the idea for well over a decade and contrary to Get Carter's assertion, I don't think any manufacturers are actually in production with it yet - indeed with the exception of Les Edgar's fantasy, to the best of my knowledge nobody has even publicly announced an intention to do so).
As ingenious as Murray is, and as much as I admire the man, it's increasingly looking like iStream is a clever answer to a problem that doesn't exist.
On the way home from work last night I was listening to Gordon Murray on the Beyond The Grid podcast, very engaging individual. But I digress.
On the podcast they speak about the fan car, obviously, and then I remembered that this car is supposed to incorporate a similar system. That can't be road legal surely?
On the podcast they speak about the fan car, obviously, and then I remembered that this car is supposed to incorporate a similar system. That can't be road legal surely?
sgtBerbatov said:
On the way home from work last night I was listening to Gordon Murray on the Beyond The Grid podcast, very engaging individual. But I digress.
On the podcast they speak about the fan car, obviously, and then I remembered that this car is supposed to incorporate a similar system. That can't be road legal surely?
If Gordon's as smart as I think he is, he'll become a part owner at Topaz and Pilkington glass, so that cars running behind the T.50 are suitably PPF'd for the media blasting they'll encounter (unless it all gets expelled into a bag, like on a lawn mower On the podcast they speak about the fan car, obviously, and then I remembered that this car is supposed to incorporate a similar system. That can't be road legal surely?
).sgtBerbatov said:
On the podcast they speak about the fan car, obviously, and then I remembered that this car is supposed to incorporate a similar system. That can't be road legal surely?
It is something that the Regulations simply don't anticipate.The problem is that, ultimately, all a fan does is take air from under the car and accelerate it, to create low pressure in accordance with Bernoulli's theorem.
Diffusers do exactly the same (albeit less effectively), so the only way of banning a fan would be to draw some sort of line in the sand for how much aerodynamic acceleration/pressure reduction is allowed, which would be a very difficult thing to do in practice.
Either that, or have a ban on 'moveable aerodynamic surfaces', which is what exists in motorsport, and what Murray tried to trick his way around with the BT46... but no such ban exists on road cars, and if one were introduced, it would also impact on moveable spoilers, etc., which can benefit fuel efficiency.
Equus said:
fblm said:
What is iStream anyway? I've not read anything at all convincing in the years it's been touted as the next big thing. I get what it is supposed to achieve but don't get what the big revolution is that manufacturers aren't already doing. Composites over spaceframe and lean manufacturing have been around for decades.
Its clever hype for a stressed panel spaceframe (which as you say have been around for years), to suit a particular niche in terms of production numbers.The question is whether that niche actually exists to a degree that would be supportable.
From memory, I think it has been stated that the technique is cost-effective for production of between 1000 and 12,000 units per factory, per annum... so much larger numbers than most 'niche' manufacturers (TVR, over their halcyon years of Grimaera/Tuscan/Cerbera production, managed an average of 785 cars per annum, for example), whereas 12,000 units per year isn't enough to be of interest to mainstream manufacturers.
The Murray Hype Machine will try to convince you that it is 'scaleable' (another clever marketing buzzword) up to production levels of 120,000 per annum, but what that means is that you go off an build another factory producing up to 12K cars per annum, and that's neither particularly practical or environmentally friendly, in the real world.
In reality, the industry has been very slow and reluctant to adopt the system (GM has been pushing the idea for well over a decade and contrary to Get Carter's assertion, I don't think any manufacturers are actually in production with it yet - indeed with the exception of Les Edgar's fantasy, to the best of my knowledge nobody has even publicly announced an intention to do so).
As ingenious as Murray is, and as much as I admire the man, it's increasingly looking like iStream is a clever answer to a problem that doesn't exist.
And that ^^^ takes a reasonably large press tool to make. iStream replaces that large pressing with a cnc bent tube frame re-enforced with a composite bonded stiffening panel as already mentioned. All that it does is to trade initial setup cost for part manufacturing cost (because it takes much longer to make each part and takes more people). The reason it's mostly pointless is that the big manufacturers have absolutely no problem in spending pots of cash on setting up their lines! A few press tools at £500,000 a pop are actually really small beer these days!
So for a very few very small manufacturers, who can't afford to spend cash getting setup, and who can forgo the (significant) advantages of the pressed structural panels, it makes some sense. Unfortunately, to date, no manufacturer of that size or type really exists, simply because that market is currently un-tenable from a business case perspective.
Proven alternatives already exist, using cast and extruded sectional construction between smaller pressed panels, that provide a similar flexibility and low setup cost (the classic "VH" architecture pioneered by Lotus for AML, or Ferraris "tube and plate" chassis architecture for example)
VH:
Ferrari:
Today, as far as i can tell, it's simply not possible to make between 1,000 and 10,000 cars a year without either a massive loss or without those cars costing around £150,000. iStream doesn't change that.........
(note, the big OE's may well take a loss on a niche product that sits in that production range, and write it off against "marketing", but they can only afford to do this because they are sendig hundreds of thousands of other products out the door that same year!)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Tenuous? You (and everyone else on PistonHeads, I would guess) are obviously aware of it as a Renault product, virtually all media you will find refers to the car as 'Renault's new Alpine A110, and it's being sold via Renault dealerships.Alpine is to Renault what Abarth is to Fiat, so pretty direct.
ETA: Further proof, if it is needed, that the A110 is a 'halo' marketing product in Renault's eyes is the fact that Caterham chose to abort their involvement: it served no marketing purpose for them, and it didn't stack up as a commercial product in its own right.
Edited by Equus on Thursday 6th June 11:09
anonymous said:
[redacted]
As mentioned, there are some niche cases, which are feasible for large OEs, the Alpine being one of them! Consider, what actually is an Alpine A110?Can i suggests it's a Megane in a different frock? The only reason Renault can afford to make the Alpine for less than 150k is because, mostly, it's actually a Megane! The powertrain is lifted lock-stock and barrel from the Megane, the electronics / EFC are also used as are the majority of support systems that actually make the car work. Because of that sharing, Renault could juuuuust about make that car work with a unique bodyshell, but even then, despite using pretty much all the parts of a car costing just £27,000, the Alpine is on sale for £46,000! That's how hard it is to make the sums add up for any low volume sports car!
Gemaeden said:
fblm said:
What is iStream anyway? I've not read anything at all convincing in the years it's been touted as the next big thing. I get what it is supposed to achieve but don't get what the big revolution is that manufacturers arn't already doing. Composites over spaceframe and lean manufacturing have been around for decades.
As far as I understand from http://istreamtechnology.co.uk:An iStream chassis is essentially a hybrid structure consisting of a metallic frame (iFrame) and composite sandwich panels (iPanels). The basic concept is to use the iFrame to form a basic skeleton to locate all the local attachment points such as powertrain, steering, suspension and occupant seats etc. The iFrame alone does not meet the performance demands of a modern car, so we then stabilise the iframe by bonding the highly rigid (iPanels) onto the metallic members so they then act as very stiff shear panels.
The resultant Hybrid structure (iStream) delivers an entirely new lightweight automotive platform that meets all the demands of corrosion protection, strength, stiffness and crash performance at a fraction of the typical investment cost of conventional car platforms today. The simplicity of the manufacturing process means that the manufacturing energy requirements are a fraction of conventional stamp steel process, and requirements for factory footprint space are also far less.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Marketing isn't that blunt an instrument. Halo projects/brands like the Alpine (and the Bugatti, for VAG) have the much more subtle effect of making Joe Public think 'if they can achieve that, the engineering that goes into my Golf/Megane must be similarly competent'.As VAG discovered with the VW Phaeton, you can't lift models within a certain brand too far above their station, but you can let them bathe in the reflected glamour of separate niche brands, positioned higher.
I'm sure you're perfectly well aware of this, really, but this is PistonHeads, so of course people will be obtuse, when they can't be right, for the sake of a good argument.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
OK. Whatever. 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And 'certain individuals' have continued to do silly things, despite the control of a very experienced Board, despite changes in the 'certain individual' at the helm, for over 20 years?Do come and join us in the real world, some time... you might enjoy it.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
OK. How about I sit back and let you explain why Renault bought Alpine in the first place, and what their real intentions are behind the A110?You can also explain why other major manufacturers decided to buy traditionally unprofitable 'halo' brands like Maserati, Lotus, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Abarth, Ghia, Maybach, etc., etc.
I'm sure that not only the whole of PistonHeads, but the managing board of VAG are agog to hear your wisdom.
I know it would be convenient for you if I were to leave you to spout s
te unchallenged, but I'm enjoying having you explain how the whole of the motor industry is wrong, and you're right, too much.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff