Gordon Murray's New Supercar
Discussion
Not Aston related - but I figured you're all petrol heads, so you'd enjoy it.
Harry Metcalfe talks to Gordon Murray over a pre-prod T50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8PMXCMrsM&pp...
Harry Metcalfe talks to Gordon Murray over a pre-prod T50.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8PMXCMrsM&pp...
Thank you for posting. You say not Aston related, but in a way it is, because of the Aston Martin Valkyrie. Two cars with very similar aims.
I like the way Gordon Murray speaks openly. EG his opinions about 20" road wheels, carbon fibre road wheels, ridiculous shapes for front running lights, unnecessarily exaggerated front air intakes etc.
Interesting how Cosworth have now built two different V12 engines. Wonder if there are any common features?
Possibly Adrian Newey has created an ultimate performance car, whereas Gordon Murray seems to be more conscious of having a beautiful appearance.
Congratulations to him. Quite something for a start-up business to be able to finance a new road legal hyper-car.
Jon39 said:
I like the way Gordon Murray speaks openly. EG his opinions about 20" road wheels, carbon fibre road wheels, ridiculous shapes for front running lights, unnecessarily exaggerated front air intakes etc.
The T.50 is a fantastic piece of engineering - both in packaging and light-weighting of nearly every component (FEA has been GM's best friend). The comparison against Valkyrie makes sense, but they're quite different cars in reality.
The T.50 is designed as the purest, last hoorah of a driver's car, with maximum tactile interaction, regardless of how quick it might be (similar in fact to a manual GT8 I'd have thought - it might not be that quick, but each element of the driving experience is a tactile one). It'll of course be blisteringly quick - the moment you can shed weight from a car, it doesn't need as much power to propel it. As noted in all the videos, technology's moved on sufficiently now that GMA could re-visit a McLaren F1 style of car but better it significantly.
Valkyrie's a different approach - it's not aimed at being the pinnacle of driver involvement (the gearbox prevents that, and I imagine the driving experience will be somewhat...busy), instead it's going for outright performance and lap times, using a lot of aero surfaces and substantial power, but with the same ideology of having the best, most finely and delicately crafted parts that are possible. It's heavier, but has a slightly larger engine and hybrid tech that will only ever add weight, so the ~1100kg's isn't that chubby all things considered. Without the battery pack, the weight would probably be in spitting distance of the T.50.
Of course the engine pre-dates the T.50's but originates from the same building. While it 'only' revs to 11,100rpm, it is 2.6 litres larger in displacement, and that additional rotating mass makes a difference as far as piston and rod mass (smaller capacity is better if you're seeking high revs).
It's quite possible that Valkyrie might be too quick as a road car, or perhaps just not exploitable on the road - it comes back to the argument that in the real world, an Alpine A110 (like GM owns) is maybe all the car you need to have a satisfying drive away from a circuit. It's why the T.50 might be the perfect driver's car, though both cars, with such rarity and high prices, are likely to be locked away in collections rather than used, which is a great pity.
Is one better than the other? it's a personal preference - I'm just glad they both came into existence as the door starts to close on such other-worldly ventures involving burning petrol. They're both very British projects, which is quite satisfying if you're a fan of UK automotive engineering.
The T.50 is designed as the purest, last hoorah of a driver's car, with maximum tactile interaction, regardless of how quick it might be (similar in fact to a manual GT8 I'd have thought - it might not be that quick, but each element of the driving experience is a tactile one). It'll of course be blisteringly quick - the moment you can shed weight from a car, it doesn't need as much power to propel it. As noted in all the videos, technology's moved on sufficiently now that GMA could re-visit a McLaren F1 style of car but better it significantly.
Valkyrie's a different approach - it's not aimed at being the pinnacle of driver involvement (the gearbox prevents that, and I imagine the driving experience will be somewhat...busy), instead it's going for outright performance and lap times, using a lot of aero surfaces and substantial power, but with the same ideology of having the best, most finely and delicately crafted parts that are possible. It's heavier, but has a slightly larger engine and hybrid tech that will only ever add weight, so the ~1100kg's isn't that chubby all things considered. Without the battery pack, the weight would probably be in spitting distance of the T.50.
Of course the engine pre-dates the T.50's but originates from the same building. While it 'only' revs to 11,100rpm, it is 2.6 litres larger in displacement, and that additional rotating mass makes a difference as far as piston and rod mass (smaller capacity is better if you're seeking high revs).
It's quite possible that Valkyrie might be too quick as a road car, or perhaps just not exploitable on the road - it comes back to the argument that in the real world, an Alpine A110 (like GM owns) is maybe all the car you need to have a satisfying drive away from a circuit. It's why the T.50 might be the perfect driver's car, though both cars, with such rarity and high prices, are likely to be locked away in collections rather than used, which is a great pity.
Is one better than the other? it's a personal preference - I'm just glad they both came into existence as the door starts to close on such other-worldly ventures involving burning petrol. They're both very British projects, which is quite satisfying if you're a fan of UK automotive engineering.
NFC 85 Vette said:
It's quite possible that Valkyrie might be too quick as a road car ......
Obviously, but imagine top trumps at the bar, with a Valkryie in the car park.NFC 85 Vette said:
I'm just glad they both came into existence as the door starts to close on such other-worldly ventures involving burning petrol. They're both very British projects, which is quite satisfying if you're a fan of UK automotive engineering.
Yes, wonderful that anyone attempts such projects now.We have not heard much about others. Is Mercedes the only other one ?
Think Rimac and Koenigsegg might have hyper road cars on the way.
Jon39 said:
Yes, wonderful that anyone attempts such projects now.
We have not heard much about others. Is Mercedes the only other one ?
Think Rimac and Koenigsegg might have hyper road cars on the way.
In the ICE realm, it's only really Mercedes with the AMG One and Koenigsegg still using internal combustion engines in hyper cars I think. I might have missed some, apologies - there's a few popping up every 6 months it seems We have not heard much about others. Is Mercedes the only other one ?
Think Rimac and Koenigsegg might have hyper road cars on the way.
.At Mercedes, they were (perhaps still are) having emissions issues (getting an F1 engine to pass road car emissions tests isn't easy, the engine wasn't designed for it, and AFAIK, the pneumatic valve train will have been replaced for durability). The problem that car faces next is that as each year passes, that 'state-of-the-art' F1 engine was from the 2016 Merc F1 car, so it's 4 years old now and looks to be falling behind Valkyrie in development terms. If and when it does surface, will customers still be as keen on it if one of the USP's is an engine that's seen as out of date?
In any case, the CEO's now in charge of a much better looking, better sound hypercar project
Interestingly, it's meant to have a single clutch automated manual, like Valkyrie (for the same reason - lightweight and somewhat 'direct' in operation).
Koenigsegg have the Gamera on the way, which is a different thing all together - a 2.0 litre 3 cylinder engine and 3 electric motors (1677hp total) and a 4 seater layout. It'll probably be fantastic, and I admire their engineering - but they're a bit like Bugatti to me; they're so expensive and so un-exploitable on the road, that they don't excite or interest me as much as they perhaps should, given the performance figures.
BEV wise, there's a few - Rimac and Lotus for example; the £2m electric hypercar segment is growing despite it answering a question nobody really asked... (unless people just want to go drag racing or do 0-100mph runs in between charges, but it doesn't have to cost £2m to go quite fast IMO).
The family watched Harry’s video last night. I insisted as it was a watershed moment in the evolution of the car. Or some such argument...
Still love the Valkyrie. Stunning track refugee.
But the T.50? Never thought there would be a more aspirational car than the F1. Then the best person legitimately to replace it, just did.
Hope they both get into customer’s hands.
(Couldn’t care less if the Merc did. Visually offensive, IMHO.)
Engines that each rev beyond 11K is stunning. Cosworth have to feel rightly smug.
Personally? I am so far off being able to pay for either, it’s completely irrelevant. But as of yesterday, I’d go for the T.50 as I’d be likely to live longer driving it
Still love the Valkyrie. Stunning track refugee.
But the T.50? Never thought there would be a more aspirational car than the F1. Then the best person legitimately to replace it, just did.
Hope they both get into customer’s hands.
(Couldn’t care less if the Merc did. Visually offensive, IMHO.)
Engines that each rev beyond 11K is stunning. Cosworth have to feel rightly smug.
Personally? I am so far off being able to pay for either, it’s completely irrelevant. But as of yesterday, I’d go for the T.50 as I’d be likely to live longer driving it
Gassing Station | Aston Martin | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff