RE: Gordon Murray: 'Last flag-waver of a great V12'

[Jim the Sunderer]

Looks like he had a good game on Bullseye.

[BurtonLazars]

PH User said:

Could you explain it to me as well please?

OK. What is it you don’t understand?

[GetCarter]

Ian-b468s said:

Why were we not allowed to see the Gordon Murray exhibition a couple of years ago!

This one?

http://stevecarter.com/x/x.htm

[PH User]

BurtonLazars said:

PH User said:

Could you explain it to me as well please?

OK. What is it you don’t understand?

All of what you said.

[BurtonLazars]

PH User said:

All of what you said.

OK, let’s start low resolution and then dive deeper if you want more.

Redroaster wrote:

redroadster said:

What's really funny is an ultima weighs around same with 1100bhp engine for 100 grand, so with a simple formula it's up there with exotica, are they worth 20 times more woukd like to see a road test with it included.

Personally, I think a comparison between an ultima and a T50 is ridiculous, and that a road test between the two would be meaningless, and so I’m asking redroaster some questions to better understand his point.

Is that clearer?

[scoopdydoo]

I love that a car like this is being built and I'm glad there's people like Gordon Murray who can design such a thing. Feels like a glimpse of what cars could be like if manufacturers didn't always take the easy way and follow the horsepower race for YouTube drag race fanboi bragging rights.

To be honest I find most new cars quite boring and formulaic.

Hypercar? Turbocharged Mid engine V8 some hybrid assistance
Supercar? As above minus the hybrid.
Supersaloon? Turbo V8 4WD
Hot Hatch? 2.0 4cyl turbo 4WD
Electric Car? Boring and so on.

This is at least, far different from anything else. Petrol power isn't going to disappear overnight either, they'll still be on the road in 50 years.

[PH User]

BurtonLazars said:

PH User said:

All of what you said.

OK, let’s start low resolution and then dive deeper if you want more.

Redroaster wrote:

redroadster said:

What's really funny is an ultima weighs around same with 1100bhp engine for 100 grand, so with a simple formula it's up there with exotica, are they worth 20 times more woukd like to see a road test with it included.

Personally, I think a comparison between an ultima and a T50 is ridiculous, and that a road test between the two would be meaningless, and so I’m asking redroaster some questions to better understand his point.

Is that clearer?

Yes, you've written that much more clearly. It would be better without the slightly naff management speak though.

[BurtonLazars]

PH User said:

It would be better without the slightly naff management speak though.

very good.

[hairykrishna]

Ultima have a bloody good marketing team don't they?

[ManyMotors]

Gordon is heading up the segment of automotive enthusiasts that is similar to what exists for antique tractors: people who find fun with totally outclassed, old technology. And that is completely fine! Now how do I rebuild a Zenith Model 61?

[BurtonLazars]

Agree - similarly I find the craftsmanship of a mate who makes sash windows to be exquisite. I don’t find myself looking at his work and saying he’s wasting his time because they’re not double-glazed uPVC.

[redroadster]

BurtonLazars said:

Personally, I think a comparison between an ultima and a T50 is ridiculous, and that a road test between the two would be meaningless, and so I’m asking redroaster some questions to better understand his point.

Is that clearer?

OK an ultima with 1100 bhp and weighing less than a ton for 100k
Looks like a race car for Rd.
Sounds epic.
Will have similar on paper performance.
All this from a very simple proven package that's drivable and use able.
Reliable and because off price actually attainable.
So my point is keep turning out these ridiculous priced cars whose owners prob won't drive them, in meantime are these amazing designed cars much better to drive than a 100k car?
Hope you can follow my bullet points and reply to each one?

[BurtonLazars]

redroadster said:

OK an ultima with 1100 bhp and weighing less than a ton for 100k
Looks like a race car for Rd.
Sounds epic.
Will have similar on paper performance.
All this from a very simple proven package that's drivable and use able.
Reliable and because off price actually attainable.
So my point is keep turning out these ridiculous priced cars whose owners prob won't drive them, in meantime are these amazing designed cars much better to drive than a 100k car?
Hope you can follow my bullet points and reply to each one?

thanks, that’s useful; I can follow every point.

[SidewaysSi]

redroadster said:

BurtonLazars said:

Personally, I think a comparison between an ultima and a T50 is ridiculous, and that a road test between the two would be meaningless, and so I’m asking redroaster some questions to better understand his point.

Is that clearer?

OK an ultima with 1100 bhp and weighing less than a ton for 100k
Looks like a race car for Rd.
Sounds epic.
Will have similar on paper performance.
All this from a very simple proven package that's drivable and use able.
Reliable and because off price actually attainable.
So my point is keep turning out these ridiculous priced cars whose owners prob won't drive them, in meantime are these amazing designed cars much better to drive than a 100k car?
Hope you can follow my bullet points and reply to each one?

Ultima is an overpriced POS compared to other cars.

[ffhard]

A truly, TRULY great man! Someone earlier mentioned Victorian engineers and Gordon Murray deserves to be up there with Brunel. And I like to think that if they had lived in the same times with the same facilities and materials available they would have been stupendous!

[robsco]

SpeckledJim said:

He's the Brian Clough of auto engineers.

He wouldn’t say he is the best engineer in the business, but he’s certainly in the top one.

[Equus]

ffhard said:

Someone earlier mentioned Victorian engineers and Gordon Murray deserves to be up there with Brunel.

Yes, that's fair: none of Brunel's jobs ever made a profit, either.

King of the Vanity Project ...

[SidewaysSi]

Equus said:

ffhard said:

Someone earlier mentioned Victorian engineers and Gordon Murray deserves to be up there with Brunel.

Yes, that's fair: none of Brunel's jobs ever made a profit, either.

King of the Vanity Project ...

I think GM has done very well for himself so not really the same.

[Equus]

SidewaysSi said:

I think GM has done very well for himself so not really the same.

Brunel did very well for himself, too - it was the investors in his projects who all ended up bankrupted.

What people tend to miss about the 'great' Victorian engineering projects is that they almost invariably cost a stload more than they were predicted to; almost always the original investment companies went bankrupt, allowing the finished projects to be bought up for a pittance by someone else... and only then did they begin operating at a profit.

The Rocket (Murray, not Stephenson) made a loss, and the F1 only turned a profit 'cos Ron Dennis called in a ruthless industry beancounter by the name of Derek Waelend to turn things around.

[Throttle Body]

hornbaek said:

BurtonLazars said:

hornbaek said:

Sad that all his talent is spent on something that is past its sell by date the day it roles out of the factory door. The F1 was ahead of its time and still today is pushing the envelope of what is possible with a naturally aspirated engine combining all the aero, lightness and drive ability into one design that is defying the passage of time.

Can you confirm you’re saying (?) that “the T50 is past its sell by date”, but the F1 is “still today pushing the envelope of what’s possible”? And that you think the F1 has better “aero, lightness and drive ability” than the T50.

hornbaek said:

Sadly with this new one he is at the dinosaur end of the V12 engine. Imagine if he had built something with the vision of the F1 that he had at the time.

Are you suggesting the T50 should have been an EV?

You are misunderstanding me. You need to add “at the time” into the equation. The F1 was leading in every department at the time of its launch. The T50 is not - and only has another 5-10 years to leave its mark before legislation takes it out of play. I see that as a missed opportunity to create something great which will live on into the future - such as the F1. That is also the reason why the F1 costs 3-4x more than the T50.

I agree with you, Hornbaek. I don't see the T50 changing the world, or leading us in a new direction. It just seems to be more optimisation giving marginal gains at vast cost. I hope that I turn out to be wrong, though. I have immense respect for Gordon Murray.