RE: GMA reveals 725hp T.50s 'Niki Lauda'
Discussion
Equus said:
ThePackMan said:
Appreciate that I'm in a total minority here, but for some reason I can't get too excited by this or the road going version. Even the "engineering nerd fest" doesn't really seem that interesting in the same way it does with Koeningsegg (for example).
That said, UK jobs and technical excellence is great. But I don't see any need to constantly take swipes at McLaren, because on the UK job/exporter front they are doing a lot more than GM ever has or ever will. And I say that as a Ferrari owner, not a McLaren fan boy.
I sat and watched the Harry Metcalfe YouTube last night; Harry was excellent as always (much better than the fawning hyperbole of the 'official' Dario Franchitti videos) and I do enjoy listening to Gordon but for all the engineering effort that's been put into it, I couldn't help but spend the whole time thinking "that's all very well, but wouldn't it be nice if they'd spent all that effort creating something that's actually relevant.That said, UK jobs and technical excellence is great. But I don't see any need to constantly take swipes at McLaren, because on the UK job/exporter front they are doing a lot more than GM ever has or ever will. And I say that as a Ferrari owner, not a McLaren fan boy.
£3milllion+ so that a handful of the ultra-wealthy can drive round in circles a few times on non-competitive track days, before getting bored and putting under a dust sheet? In terms of the pinnacle to a lifetime's achievement, that's some anti-climax.
SidewaysSi said:
It's called making money...and nothing wrong with that.
There's the point. There are easier ways of making more money (consulting for major manufacturers). He's pretty much said as much himself, but this isn't about making money - it's Murray's final, never-to-be-bettered bid for posterity.He's a long-time admirer of the original Lotus Elan. I'd be a lot more comprehensively impressed if he could create something with the lasting, game-changing importance of that car (he's tried to do that too, of course, with iHype, but he's failed...), rather than the final polish of an obsolete technology, for rich collectors .
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 23 February 10:27
AJB88 said:
Anybody found a video of it running yet? I want to hear the 12.
Murray mentioned that a test mule should be ready end of the year.He also said that as the compression ratio is so high it will likely idle at about 2.5k - 3k rpm.
The engine is worth the asking price alone imo!
As someone with a connection to this project i'll be a little bit careful with what i say at this time (tune in for the real story in about,oh, 20 years time i guess ;-) but my reservation around this car, and it's road going brother are really that is probably not actually the ultimate drivers car, but the ultimate engineers car!
Now as a geeky automotive engineer that should really hit my spot, but, well, it doesn't, in fact i think it's simply too much to be the ultimate drivers car.
The absolute best modern car i've ever driven for purely driving is, i think, the BAC mono and the absolute best car of any age probably the Lotus 49 F1 car.
Both cars have (relatively) modest grip levels, no significant aero at anyspeed, and plenty of power (2kg/bhp mono, 1.3kg/bhp 49) but not an absolutely enourmous amount, so you can use the power most of the time without worry too much and critically, the Tyre is not dominating the entire car.
Modern ultra high performance cars are all completely tyre limited. When the 918/P1/LaLa was announced, people rushed to ask "which is the fastest" but the answer was "all of them" because they all use the same tyre, trading mear tenths or thousanths of a second at any given track.
The Mono is great because it actually doesn't particularly care what tyre is fitted, it's very light, (540 kg, some 300 kg lighter than this "perfect drivers car" T50s remember!!) and nowhere near as fast with just 300 off bhp, but as a driver, for me, it gets the nod to actually drive ! The Type 49 great because despite what a certain Mr G.Murray might say, it in fact is all you need to actually drive, 4 small wheels a seat, and a V8 behind you, and well that's about it (don't crash!!) and at about 570kg with driver and around 450 bhp, it sits in a perfect power sweet spot.
the problem is simply that making another purely drivers car (LCC Rocket anyone) is not enough of a money maker, and to attract the big money, you need what i call "pubammo" ie the numbers need to be big and impressive. The fact that to an engineer a V12 is more exciting that a V8, and big aero engineering more interesting that non aero, seals the deal.
Now as a geeky automotive engineer that should really hit my spot, but, well, it doesn't, in fact i think it's simply too much to be the ultimate drivers car.
The absolute best modern car i've ever driven for purely driving is, i think, the BAC mono and the absolute best car of any age probably the Lotus 49 F1 car.
Both cars have (relatively) modest grip levels, no significant aero at anyspeed, and plenty of power (2kg/bhp mono, 1.3kg/bhp 49) but not an absolutely enourmous amount, so you can use the power most of the time without worry too much and critically, the Tyre is not dominating the entire car.
Modern ultra high performance cars are all completely tyre limited. When the 918/P1/LaLa was announced, people rushed to ask "which is the fastest" but the answer was "all of them" because they all use the same tyre, trading mear tenths or thousanths of a second at any given track.
The Mono is great because it actually doesn't particularly care what tyre is fitted, it's very light, (540 kg, some 300 kg lighter than this "perfect drivers car" T50s remember!!) and nowhere near as fast with just 300 off bhp, but as a driver, for me, it gets the nod to actually drive ! The Type 49 great because despite what a certain Mr G.Murray might say, it in fact is all you need to actually drive, 4 small wheels a seat, and a V8 behind you, and well that's about it (don't crash!!) and at about 570kg with driver and around 450 bhp, it sits in a perfect power sweet spot.
the problem is simply that making another purely drivers car (LCC Rocket anyone) is not enough of a money maker, and to attract the big money, you need what i call "pubammo" ie the numbers need to be big and impressive. The fact that to an engineer a V12 is more exciting that a V8, and big aero engineering more interesting that non aero, seals the deal.
Max_Torque said:
As someone with a connection to this project i'll be a little bit careful with what i say at this time (tune in for the real story in about,oh, 20 years time i guess ;-) but my reservation around this car, and it's road going brother are really that is probably not actually the ultimate drivers car, but the ultimate engineers car!
Now as a geeky automotive engineer that should really hit my spot, but, well, it doesn't, in fact i think it's simply too much to be the ultimate drivers car.
The absolute best modern car i've ever driven for purely driving is, i think, the BAC mono and the absolute best car of any age probably the Lotus 49 F1 car.
Both cars have (relatively) modest grip levels, no significant aero at anyspeed, and plenty of power (2kg/bhp mono, 1.3kg/bhp 49) but not an absolutely enourmous amount, so you can use the power most of the time without worry too much and critically, the Tyre is not dominating the entire car.
Modern ultra high performance cars are all completely tyre limited. When the 918/P1/LaLa was announced, people rushed to ask "which is the fastest" but the answer was "all of them" because they all use the same tyre, trading mear tenths or thousanths of a second at any given track.
The Mono is great because it actually doesn't particularly care what tyre is fitted, it's very light, (540 kg, some 300 kg lighter than this "perfect drivers car" T50s remember!!) and nowhere near as fast with just 300 off bhp, but as a driver, for me, it gets the nod to actually drive ! The Type 49 great because despite what a certain Mr G.Murray might say, it in fact is all you need to actually drive, 4 small wheels a seat, and a V8 behind you, and well that's about it (don't crash!!) and at about 570kg with driver and around 450 bhp, it sits in a perfect power sweet spot.
the problem is simply that making another purely drivers car (LCC Rocket anyone) is not enough of a money maker, and to attract the big money, you need what i call "pubammo" ie the numbers need to be big and impressive. The fact that to an engineer a V12 is more exciting that a V8, and big aero engineering more interesting that non aero, seals the deal.
So, basically "I've driven 2 cars which are better to drive than one that I haven't yet driven".Now as a geeky automotive engineer that should really hit my spot, but, well, it doesn't, in fact i think it's simply too much to be the ultimate drivers car.
The absolute best modern car i've ever driven for purely driving is, i think, the BAC mono and the absolute best car of any age probably the Lotus 49 F1 car.
Both cars have (relatively) modest grip levels, no significant aero at anyspeed, and plenty of power (2kg/bhp mono, 1.3kg/bhp 49) but not an absolutely enourmous amount, so you can use the power most of the time without worry too much and critically, the Tyre is not dominating the entire car.
Modern ultra high performance cars are all completely tyre limited. When the 918/P1/LaLa was announced, people rushed to ask "which is the fastest" but the answer was "all of them" because they all use the same tyre, trading mear tenths or thousanths of a second at any given track.
The Mono is great because it actually doesn't particularly care what tyre is fitted, it's very light, (540 kg, some 300 kg lighter than this "perfect drivers car" T50s remember!!) and nowhere near as fast with just 300 off bhp, but as a driver, for me, it gets the nod to actually drive ! The Type 49 great because despite what a certain Mr G.Murray might say, it in fact is all you need to actually drive, 4 small wheels a seat, and a V8 behind you, and well that's about it (don't crash!!) and at about 570kg with driver and around 450 bhp, it sits in a perfect power sweet spot.
the problem is simply that making another purely drivers car (LCC Rocket anyone) is not enough of a money maker, and to attract the big money, you need what i call "pubammo" ie the numbers need to be big and impressive. The fact that to an engineer a V12 is more exciting that a V8, and big aero engineering more interesting that non aero, seals the deal.
OK
I'm just glad things like this are going to be built (or at least plan to be.....!). With all due respect, you just seem to have a personal disliking to this from the get-go saying that the engineering isn't actually that impressive etc when in fact it is. I mean, you say the rpm/sec thing isn't impressive because an electric motor or an F1 engine can do more, well that's hardly comparing apples with apples, is it. Likewise you say it'd be a nightmare to change gear, yet it's been mentioned how they're getting around that.
Max_Torque said:
As someone with a connection to this project i'll be a little bit careful with what i say at this time (tune in for the real story in about,oh, 20 years time i guess ;-) but my reservation around this car, and it's road going brother are really that is probably not actually the ultimate drivers car, but the ultimate engineers car!
Now as a geeky automotive engineer that should really hit my spot, but, well, it doesn't, in fact i think it's simply too much to be the ultimate drivers car.
The absolute best modern car i've ever driven for purely driving is, i think, the BAC mono and the absolute best car of any age probably the Lotus 49 F1 car.
Both cars have (relatively) modest grip levels, no significant aero at anyspeed, and plenty of power (2kg/bhp mono, 1.3kg/bhp 49) but not an absolutely enourmous amount, so you can use the power most of the time without worry too much and critically, the Tyre is not dominating the entire car.
Modern ultra high performance cars are all completely tyre limited. When the 918/P1/LaLa was announced, people rushed to ask "which is the fastest" but the answer was "all of them" because they all use the same tyre, trading mear tenths or thousanths of a second at any given track.
The Mono is great because it actually doesn't particularly care what tyre is fitted, it's very light, (540 kg, some 300 kg lighter than this "perfect drivers car" T50s remember!!) and nowhere near as fast with just 300 off bhp, but as a driver, for me, it gets the nod to actually drive ! The Type 49 great because despite what a certain Mr G.Murray might say, it in fact is all you need to actually drive, 4 small wheels a seat, and a V8 behind you, and well that's about it (don't crash!!) and at about 570kg with driver and around 450 bhp, it sits in a perfect power sweet spot.
the problem is simply that making another purely drivers car (LCC Rocket anyone) is not enough of a money maker, and to attract the big money, you need what i call "pubammo" ie the numbers need to be big and impressive. The fact that to an engineer a V12 is more exciting that a V8, and big aero engineering more interesting that non aero, seals the deal.
Fascinating. Thanks for this Max Torque.Now as a geeky automotive engineer that should really hit my spot, but, well, it doesn't, in fact i think it's simply too much to be the ultimate drivers car.
The absolute best modern car i've ever driven for purely driving is, i think, the BAC mono and the absolute best car of any age probably the Lotus 49 F1 car.
Both cars have (relatively) modest grip levels, no significant aero at anyspeed, and plenty of power (2kg/bhp mono, 1.3kg/bhp 49) but not an absolutely enourmous amount, so you can use the power most of the time without worry too much and critically, the Tyre is not dominating the entire car.
Modern ultra high performance cars are all completely tyre limited. When the 918/P1/LaLa was announced, people rushed to ask "which is the fastest" but the answer was "all of them" because they all use the same tyre, trading mear tenths or thousanths of a second at any given track.
The Mono is great because it actually doesn't particularly care what tyre is fitted, it's very light, (540 kg, some 300 kg lighter than this "perfect drivers car" T50s remember!!) and nowhere near as fast with just 300 off bhp, but as a driver, for me, it gets the nod to actually drive ! The Type 49 great because despite what a certain Mr G.Murray might say, it in fact is all you need to actually drive, 4 small wheels a seat, and a V8 behind you, and well that's about it (don't crash!!) and at about 570kg with driver and around 450 bhp, it sits in a perfect power sweet spot.
the problem is simply that making another purely drivers car (LCC Rocket anyone) is not enough of a money maker, and to attract the big money, you need what i call "pubammo" ie the numbers need to be big and impressive. The fact that to an engineer a V12 is more exciting that a V8, and big aero engineering more interesting that non aero, seals the deal.
It's great to read first hand impressions of those who have driven the likes of the Mono and Lotus 49. In that particular Venn diagram, I think you must occupy the intersection with very few others, Max.
Equus said:
SidewaysSi said:
It's called making money...and nothing wrong with that.
There's the point. There are easier ways of making more money (consulting for major manufacturers). He's pretty much said as much himself, but this isn't about making money - it's Murray's final, never-to-be-bettered bid for posterity.He's a long-time admirer of the original Lotus Elan. I'd be a lot more comprehensively impressed if he could create something with the lasting, game-changing importance of that car (he's tried to do that too, of course, with iHype, but he's failed...), rather than the final polish of an obsolete technology, for rich collectors .
Edited by Equus on Tuesday 23 February 10:27
rampageturke said:
isn't this the exact thing he said he didnt want to do?
Absolutely!I get the impression that this model was born to try and recoup the engineering overspend. It happens a lot...
The commercial realities may well have forced Gordon's hand.
The extra deposits generated by this (must be c.£1m for each deposit) will allow them to finish building the road cars.
Much as I dislike the styling and the premise of another multi-million pound track day car, I would absolutely love a go in one.
j90gta said:
Believe Mazda beat him to that!!
Nah, not even close! The Elan pisses all over the original MX5, despite being the senior car by three decades (I've owned both, at the same time, so had plenty of experience driving them back-to-back).The MX5 was more of a born-again MGB... it doesn't even meet the Elan's performance and handling, much less represent the next quantum leap forward.
TWPC said:
Fascinating. Thanks for this Max Torque.
It's great to read first hand impressions of those who have driven the likes of the Mono and Lotus 49. In that particular Venn diagram, I think you must occupy the intersection with very few others, Max.
I'll come clean in that the Type 49 i drove was actually a replica, rather than a 'real' one, although it did have a genuine DFV in the back, although in all honestly i suspect that was ruinning in a somewhat detuned "safe for punters" spec because it didn't quite feel the full 500 horses strong. It's great to read first hand impressions of those who have driven the likes of the Mono and Lotus 49. In that particular Venn diagram, I think you must occupy the intersection with very few others, Max.
Civpilot said:
deadscoob said:
It’s quite weird. It looks like a restomod F1 from the front and looks good. The rest is just a bit odd.
If McLaren launched this there would be 20 pages of non customers saying how sh1it it looks, how the side profile proportions are all wrong, how the rear looks like a kid drew it , front looks like everything else they’ve done etc etc
This. If McLaren launched this there would be 20 pages of non customers saying how sh1it it looks, how the side profile proportions are all wrong, how the rear looks like a kid drew it , front looks like everything else they’ve done etc etc
I think the standard T.50 is stunning and really looks like it will be as good as he claims. This thing is very ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ for me.
I’m sure it’s great, and I’m sure in another colour in the real world it will look better. But in those photos in that colour it’s utterly gash looking.
If it was from anyone other than Murray people would have already rolled out the Sniff petrol super car check list.
I can’t completely decide about the T50. On the one hand some of the engineering and concept is amazing, and extrapolates from the F1. It’s also what many driving enthusiasts think they want from a car. On the other hand it is a road car that’s going to be too quick to enjoy on modern roads (is anyone going to repeat Thomas Bscher’s 200 mph commutes, or Alain de Cadenet’s cheeky run to 200 in the UK?), and a 12,000 rpm engine may not be that pleasant at pottering speeds.
To some extent it comes across as a senior engineering raging against the dying of the light. The F1 was the best because we did it that way, and this will be the best because no one else has built a car with the driver in the middle and lightweight. The F1 was not a perfect driver’s car - Martin Brundle papped himself on camera when it hit some wet leaves pottering around - and he won Le Mans in an XJR-9.
Then there’s the track version which, as others have said, seems to be contrary to Murray’s otherwise loudly stated intentions. He didn’t want to compete with others, but now the car is going into the most objective arena there is where numbers really do matter. There is at least some double-talk here.
As others have said, he could have done something different for the ultimate drivers car. He’s repeatedly said the original Lotus Elan is the best car ever, so he’s building something with 4 times the power and double the top speed. I wonder if he could have built an F1 that was more forgiving (less crashable) and had performance more useable on modern roads?
To some extent it comes across as a senior engineering raging against the dying of the light. The F1 was the best because we did it that way, and this will be the best because no one else has built a car with the driver in the middle and lightweight. The F1 was not a perfect driver’s car - Martin Brundle papped himself on camera when it hit some wet leaves pottering around - and he won Le Mans in an XJR-9.
Then there’s the track version which, as others have said, seems to be contrary to Murray’s otherwise loudly stated intentions. He didn’t want to compete with others, but now the car is going into the most objective arena there is where numbers really do matter. There is at least some double-talk here.
As others have said, he could have done something different for the ultimate drivers car. He’s repeatedly said the original Lotus Elan is the best car ever, so he’s building something with 4 times the power and double the top speed. I wonder if he could have built an F1 that was more forgiving (less crashable) and had performance more useable on modern roads?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff