RE: Gordon Murray Automotive previews F1 successor

[anonymous-user]

Thanks for the reasoned responses re iStream which confirm my long held scepticism.

[Loach]

God - I'm pretty conflicted. As an object, a thing, 10/10. But.... at the same time... I'm finding it increasingly hard to get excited about yet another hypercar to be made in tiny numbers for astronomical numbers for a tiny number of collectors with astronomical wealth. In this instance, specifically for the even smaller subset of gazillionaires who desperately need something to sit next to the F1 they already have.

I was so hoping Murray would make something to show other supercar makers how it's done now that Ferrari and Lambo have marginal interest in driver involvement. I think the hypercars are just fine, thanks, and I'm not sure driving THEM is the point.

I feel marginalised. I think I need a hug.

[skwdenyer]

Loach said:

God - I'm pretty conflicted. As an object, a thing, 10/10. But.... at the same time... I'm finding it increasingly hard to get excited about yet another hypercar to be made in tiny numbers for astronomical numbers for a tiny number of collectors with astronomical wealth. In this instance, specifically for the even smaller subset of gazillionaires who desperately need something to sit next to the F1 they already have.

I was so hoping Murray would make something to show other supercar makers how it's done now that Ferrari and Lambo have marginal interest in driver involvement. I think the hypercars are just fine, thanks, and I'm not sure driving THEM is the point.

I feel marginalised. I think I need a hug.

A Ferrari 288 GTO was £73500 in 1984, about £250k in today’s money. People gasped at the price then, but real people who had worked hard in life could aspire to own such a thing.

Top (first) division footballers earned £25k pa basic in 1984, about double an average wage. The Ferrari was about 6x average earnings.

Average earnings today are about £29k, or £35k for those in full time employment. So the “Ferrari GTO price” is about £210k.

What will the Murray car offer that a £210k vehicle will not? Will it really be any more of a special thing than a GTO was in 1984?

[thegreenhell]

Loach said:

I feel marginalised. I think I need a hug.

I don't feel marginalised. I just feel poor.

[Equus]

skwdenyer said:

...the “Ferrari GTO price” is about £210k.

In terms of 'progress', I also find it slightly depressing that we're talking about 'small' engine from a man who claims to obsessive about weight that's as big (in terms of swept displacement) as that in the Miura and LP400 Countach.

Murray claims to be a huge fan of the Elan, so it would have been more relevant to produce something that filled that car's modern-day niche. I was rather hoping that the Yamaha might do that, if it ever makes production.

£2m limited edition trinkets that are doomed to spend their existence accumulating dust in the warehouses of rich collectors underwhelm me, I'm afraid.

[Loach]

skwdenyer said:

A Ferrari 288 GTO was £73500 in 1984, about £250k in today’s money. People gasped at the price then, but real people who had worked hard in life could aspire to own such a thing.

Top (first) division footballers earned £25k pa basic in 1984, about double an average wage. The Ferrari was about 6x average earnings.

Average earnings today are about £29k, or £35k for those in full time employment. So the “Ferrari GTO price” is about £210k.

What will the Murray car offer that a £210k vehicle will not? Will it really be any more of a special thing than a GTO was in 1984?

Well, it'll probably offer something. Murray has form here. 10 times more special than a back-in-the-day GTO? No. Which brings me back to my point that it's a pity he went the eleventy billion pound route.

And to my point that I need a hug because of it. I notice in your post that no hug was forthcoming.

[Kolbenkopp]

Equus said:

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.

Not an expert in the field, but it would appear that the major players have no interest because they can afford to either do stamped steel production or roll their own processes for lower volume cars. The luxury end of the market also seems to do fine as is, enough margin on the cars.

Would need an outsider not wanting to commit huge sums, like Yamaha -- or perhaps one of the many new EV makers? Shame really that the Yamaha city car did not get into production, that looked like an ace replacement for our Smart 42.

[skwdenyer]

Kolbenkopp said:

Equus said:

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.

Not an expert in the field, but it would appear that the major players have no interest because they can afford to either do stamped steel production or roll their own processes for lower volume cars. The luxury end of the market also seems to do fine as is, enough margin on the cars.

Would need an outsider not wanting to commit huge sums, like Yamaha -- or perhaps one of the many new EV makers? Shame really that the Yamaha city car did not get into production, that looked like an ace replacement for our Smart 42.

The guys who produce the Atom for the US market have most of the kit already to make iStream chassis. But if you watch the videos of them building Atoms, I’d say they’re very happy making big margins on small volumes - there’s not much urgency about their production

I do wonder if the problem is that the people who would have benefitted from iStream were around in the 1990s when apparently he was pitching the idea to McLaren, but no longer?

Right now there *ought* to be a bunch of small companies trying to produce small runs of EVs. But all the interest is in boutique sports cars, at high price points where a clad steel spaceframe just isn’t really sexy enough.

[Trap]

Toyota seem to like the look of the T25 atleast...

https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/feel...

[gigglebug]

Looking forward to seeing how he applies any new ideas he has had now that he is 20 odd years further down the line. It'll be some of the finer details that'll interest me the most, like how access to the central seat has been improved and how any extra luggage space has been made (hopefully with some equally as clever thinking as went into the F1).

[anonymous-user]

If he pulls off the size and weight with any luck it will halt this unfortunate bloating supercar buyers and manufacturers currently accept.

[Pommy]

It wont happen, its a pipe dream, hes got nothing more than a sketch and some made up numbers that for some reason everyones 'oh thats brilliant, how good is that, this things amazing'.

It even looks like the F1 from the side, he hasnt even bothered to advance the design.

Hes just rehashed his greatest hit and everyones hypnotised.

Emperors new clothes.

[BVB]

Shouldn't a South African car section on the website be opened for Gordon Murray? That's where he is from after all.

[skwdenyer]

Trap said:

Toyota seem to like the look of the T25 atleast...

https://www.toyota-europe.com/world-of-toyota/feel...

I happen to like the T25, and would gladly buy one today we’re it available. I’d have bought one the day he showed it, too.

He was clearly wildly ahead of the market with the design, but given his desire was to build a business selling to OEMs then he *had* to show them something that might aline with their ideas of a future world.

Re the new supercar, it seems from the interviews that he wants to do essentially a McLaren F1 Mk 2. Which is laudable but perhaps not earth-shatteringly relevant.

[anonymous-user]

Loach said:

I feel marginalised. I think I need a hug.

I'm afraid we don't do hugs, but there is a box of unwanted iHugs over there the corner you could use???



:-)

[dbhenshall]

This was PR for Gordon. Won’t happen and shouldn’t. The F1 was revolutionary. He hasn’t had a new idea in a long time. He can talk a good game but he needs to be in an organisation where he has a boss to get the most out of his design genius and make sure the project actually happens

[skwdenyer]

Max_Torque said:

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.........

The economics don't quite stack up. Lotus was able to produce 2000 Elise etc. per year profitably, and their GM-era production facility could produce 5000 per year on a single shift, again profitably.

The Series 1 Elise cost about £9m in today's money to develop. Could it be done for that today? Lotus are currently profitable on about 2000 units per year.

The platforms you've mentioned as "low volume" are still very highly capital-intensive. OK, no megabucks bodyside press tools, but still... Even a Corgi model car can cost nearly £50k for the dies to produce it!

Does iStream change the game? Well, yes, I think it does. It isn't the tech per se - after all, clad spaceframes are hardly new - but instead it is the "system." Using modern CNC mandrel benders, you can have repeatable bent tube sections cheaply. Straight tube is easy. Robot laser welding is easy. All the capital kit can be leased if needed, or bought relatively cheaply.

Examples? A robot welding cell, fully configured, working for 2000 hours per year will cost somewhere from £10 per hour in amortised cost over 5 years (or £12.50 per hour including finance). That's a single shift pattern.

You can envisage a simple process flow that involves a single jig, a tube cutter, a tube bender, a robot welder, etc. churning out chassis quickly and efficiently. Need more output? Scale linearly.

Where's the tooling? There isn't any (at its most basic). No extrusions, no castings, etc.

What about the composite cladding? Composite parts made off of composite tools.

All that said, in a bizarre way I feel a little sorry for Gordon Murray. If you've listened to his Goodwood Carpool, his ambition was to get carbon fibre / honycomb into the hands of everyday motorists. By the time he's got this far - with iStream - BMW are already in production with the i3, a proper carbon monocoque at an affordable price (if you stripped out the batteries and put in a simple ICE then it would be the price of a high-end Golf).

Returning to the point, however, I think GM has created a way for firms to get into a marketplace, but I'm just not so sure there are any firms who want to be in that marketplace and who are going to be customers for him.

[GetCarter]

Spent the afternoon with GM yesterday. Already many more than the 100 he needs. Including some that not only want the road car but one of the 25 track cars too. Less kit more cash. (Added lightness of course).

The two together will be £5.46 million!

Edited by GetCarter on Friday 14th June 13:15

[Equus]

skwdenyer said:

Does iStream change the game? Well, yes, I think it does. It isn't the tech per se - after all, clad spaceframes are hardly new - but instead it is the "system." Using modern CNC mandrel benders, you can have repeatable bent tube sections cheaply. Straight tube is easy. Robot laser welding is easy. All the capital kit can be leased if needed, or bought relatively cheaply.

But none of the items you've mentioned there - or, therefore, a 'system' based on them - are unique or even particularly novel.

That being the case, even if it changed the game in the slightest (and I'm personally not convinced that it does), it begs the question why anyone would want to pay GMD a stload of money for the use of the iStream label.

Does anyone (GetCarter?) have the actual patent numbers, or better still, links to the patents themselves, for what GMD believe to be the unique IP associated with the concept? No mention of them on either the GMD or specific iStream websites.

All looks like a lot of iHype, to me.

[RobM77]

GetCarter said:

Spent the afternoon with GM yesterday.

I'm not jealous - really