RE: GMA T.33 Spider previewed ahead of unveiling

[What The Deuces]

Cold said:

andrew said:

isn't he the chap who designed the f1 ?

No, that was Peter Stevens.

Not that old ste

He only started moaning when his car company failed again while GMD powers on.

Yeah he made some of the detail like on all Projects, you don’t think Adrian Newey designs every red bull component? He’s responsible for the overall concept and targets and managing the the design process. The F1 is pure GM

The giveaway is GM has designed many many cars and processes and is a real innovator. Not sure what PS has done

[giveitfish]

The F1 is gorgeous to look at and has an amazing engine - but GM didn’t do the styling or design the engine. By all accounts it’s a pretty poor drivers car though, with too much body roll and and spiky handling in road going form.

The thing that makes both the T50 and T33 exciting is the engine again. This time they don’t have the looks to go with it, so I hope someone other than GM has done the handling.

[gpgts]

GeeTeeBee said:

£50k might be a bit of a stretch these days, but £100-150k car with a nice NA engine, less exotic construction, maybe 350-400hp and 1,200kg in a usable package would be interesting. yet still with more luggage space.

Porsche 718 Spyder just about fits the bill. Only box not ticked is the 1200 Kg - so it’s heavier by about 170 KG. But add in the lighter material, carbon, monocoque, etc. to save some KG’s and you add to the price. Quite a conundrum. But for me, 718 Spyder is hard to beat. Mid Engine, NASP, manual, drop top, and beautiful without being overbearing. I had a Ferrari 360 Spyder manual and I would say another one that gets close to what you listed.

[Phobos50]

giveitfish said:

The F1 is gorgeous to look at and has an amazing engine - but GM didn’t do the styling or design the engine. By all accounts it’s a pretty poor drivers car though, with too much body roll and and spiky handling in road going form.

The thing that makes both the T50 and T33 exciting is the engine again. This time they don’t have the looks to go with it, so I hope someone other than GM has done the handling.

"By all accounts"... really? Other than Clarkson, who seems to have a pathological hatred of the car, i've seen Catchpole, Tiff and Jay Leno, amongst others, who seriously love the F1. I know who's opinion i would go by. It's the ultimate analog supercar/hypercar with zero driver aids and i'm sure (with, unfortunately, no experience of whatsoever) it needs a driver with excellent driving skills and complete focus and will bite if not treated with respect.

The thing that makes the T50 and T33 is not just the engine. The packaging, attention to detail, ethos is all GM, backed up with a magnificent engine. Those people lucky enough to have the ability to buy the cars, buy into the GM ethos - the complete package.

GM's book "Driving ambition, the story of the F1" is the best book i've ever bought and completely lays out GM's ethos from start to finish - it's his car! Yes, the F1 outer shell was styled by Peter Stevens (around the already designed 3 seater layout car underneath) and it is absolutely stunning - i just love the car but you unfairly and inaccurately completely downplay the importance of GM, who is the instigator, designer etc.. and main driving force behind every aspect of the F1, including liaising with Paul Rosche, who designed the magnificent S70/2 engine.

What is it with the constant GM bashing?

Edited by Phobos50 on Sunday 2nd April 00:26

[GeeTeeBee]

Phobos50 said:

"By all accounts"... really? Other than Clarkson, who seems to have a pathological hatred of the car, i've seen Catchpole, Tiff and Jay Leno, amongst others, who seriously love the F1.

Edited by Phobos50 on Sunday 2nd April 00:26

No idea what Clarkson said about the car, but my impression is that it doesn't handle terribly well (given the intergalactically lofty status) in standard factory spec based on all the sources I've read. Engine and low mass aside, suspect you might be disappointed if you were expecting something epoch defining in other regards.

You need to read between the lines a bit with a car like the F1, you rarely get a straight forward 'review' of a car like that. I've read enough to take the view, personally, that the balance of probability is that it's moderately flawed as a driver's car with the standard setup.

[What The Deuces]

GeeTeeBee said:

Phobos50 said:

"By all accounts"... really? Other than Clarkson, who seems to have a pathological hatred of the car, i've seen Catchpole, Tiff and Jay Leno, amongst others, who seriously love the F1.

Edited by Phobos50 on Sunday 2nd April 00:26

No idea what Clarkson said about the car, but my impression is that it doesn't handle terribly well (given the intergalactically lofty status) in standard factory spec based on all the sources I've read. Engine and low mass aside, suspect you might be disappointed if you were expecting something epoch defining in other regards.

You need to read between the lines a bit with a car like the F1, you rarely get a straight forward 'review' of a car like that. I've read enough to take the view, personally, that the balance of probability is that it's moderately flawed as a driver's car with the standard setup.

https://youtu.be/nDm4LUN85_A

From What I’ve read you’re talking bks

Frankel knows his onions https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/mclaren/f1-19...

So does Tiff

https://youtu.be/nDm4LUN85_A

Edited by What The Deuces on Sunday 2nd April 09:40

[Sway]

There's a huge weight of evidence surrounding challenges with the F1's setup - Flemke on here has done a stellar job describing it, supported by some of the very best in the industry to resolve.

Essentially, it falls between 'GT' and 'sports car' in chassis setup, with differing roll centres front and rear leading to some 'twitchy' handling on uneven surfaces.

See the Brundle test drive, where he's driving at normal speeds down an entirely normal road. Minor 'piece to camera', yet a bonefide F1 driver has to catch a completely out of nowhere snap oversteer moment...

https://youtu.be/qSxflDD_blM

Even in your Tiff video, it's apparent that it is indeed twitchy, but he likes it - just look at how he's having to work the steering wheel...

Edited by Sway on Sunday 2nd April 10:24

[GeeTeeBee]

What The Deuces said:

From What I’ve read you’re talking bks

From what I've read, you are. Wow, that was easy!

You don't come across as the thoughtful type, but I'd suggest reading around a bit more. There are some hints in the post above where to start.

[Phobos50]

Sway said:

There's a huge weight of evidence surrounding challenges with the F1's setup - Flemke on here has done a stellar job describing it, supported by some of the very best in the industry to resolve.

Essentially, it falls between 'GT' and 'sports car' in chassis setup, with differing roll centres front and rear leading to some 'twitchy' handling on uneven surfaces.

See the Brundle test drive, where he's driving at normal speeds down an entirely normal road. Minor 'piece to camera', yet a bonefide F1 driver has to catch a completely out of nowhere snap oversteer moment...

https://youtu.be/qSxflDD_blM

Even in your Tiff video, it's apparent that it is indeed twitchy, but he likes it - just look at how he's having to work the steering wheel...

Edited by Sway on Sunday 2nd April 10:24

And yet, if you watch the full 1 hour Brundle video, where he compares all of the F1's competitors (at the time of filming), and look at his final conclusions, the F1 comes out on top (in his opinion) and he loves it, in spite of its flaws. You fail to mention that but instead only home in on the 3 second twitch.

[JJJ.]

Whatever about the F1 handling dynamics (I too read about it being questionable), the T.50 is a far more useable car when it comes to simple things like fitting new tyres for example. That alone in my book puts the T.55 head and shoulders above the the F1.

[Sway]

Phobos50 said:

And yet, if you watch the full 1 hour Brundle video, where he compares all of the F1's competitors (at the time of filming), and look at his final conclusions, the F1 comes out on top (in his opinion) and he loves it, in spite of its flaws. You fail to mention that but instead only home in on the 3 second twitch.

Chap, it's my favourite car ever - I adore it.

However, it does have flaws, some fairly big ones. You're working to pretend like it's flawless. It isn't by a long shot.

That '3 second twitch' in the hands of someone who isn't an ex-Formula 1 driver can easily turn into something much, much more.

[Phobos50]

GeeTeeBee said:

Phobos50 said:

"By all accounts"... really? Other than Clarkson, who seems to have a pathological hatred of the car, i've seen Catchpole, Tiff and Jay Leno, amongst others, who seriously love the F1.

Edited by Phobos50 on Sunday 2nd April 00:26

No idea what Clarkson said about the car, but my impression is that it doesn't handle terribly well (given the intergalactically lofty status) in standard factory spec based on all the sources I've read. Engine and low mass aside, suspect you might be disappointed if you were expecting something epoch defining in other regards.

You need to read between the lines a bit with a car like the F1, you rarely get a straight forward 'review' of a car like that. I've read enough to take the view, personally, that the balance of probability is that it's moderately flawed as a driver's car with the standard setup.

You do come across as a bit pompous.

Yes, the F1 is flawed. The F40 is flawed. The Countach is very flawed. The Miura is dangerously flawed (Carburetor fire, front end weight issues when fuel tank low).... and yet these vehicles are held in such high regard by so many people.

I have no experience of the above cars unfortunately, but my Elise is flawed - and i absolutely love everything about it. Its flaws are a make-up of its overall character and i wouldn't chamge anything on it.

[Phobos50]

Sway said:

Phobos50 said:

And yet, if you watch the full 1 hour Brundle video, where he compares all of the F1's competitors (at the time of filming), and look at his final conclusions, the F1 comes out on top (in his opinion) and he loves it, in spite of its flaws. You fail to mention that but instead only home in on the 3 second twitch.

Chap, it's my favourite car ever - I adore it.

However, it does have flaws, some fairly big ones. You're working to pretend like it's flawless. It isn't by a long shot.

That '3 second twitch' in the hands of someone who isn't an ex-Formula 1 driver can easily turn into something much, much more.

I don't pretend it's flawless - i really don't. I know it isn't. I've just posted a reply to another chap about flaws in supercars - i know most supercars have flaws, and as i've already said earlier, (from what i've seen and read) the F1 demands the best driving skills and total focus and concentration, otherwise it will bite - but those who are lucky enough to drive and understand this, seem to be rewarded with such a fantastic experience.

Edited by Phobos50 on Sunday 2nd April 11:08

[E90_M3Ross]

In this discussion about the F1, it is worth bearing in mind that it was built as a road car, not a track car.

[JJJ.]

Phobos50 said:

You do come across as a bit pompous.

I'd give the man the benefit of the doubt.

Remember, the F1 was a 600k back in the early 90's, that was some hill of money compared to say an F40 etc. I'd expect, maybe naively no '' 3 sec twitch'' or whatever one wants to call it.

Having said that, you're right most of, if not all supercars are flawed and I think owners accept that to a certain degree provided the flaws are not unexpected and heart stopping into the bargain.


Anyway, back in the real world it's all academic so I wouldn't expect anybody to get too hung up on the pros or cons of multi million pound supercars.

I still like Koenigsegg and know nothing.

Edited by JJJ. on Sunday 2nd April 11:32

[What The Deuces]

GeeTeeBee said:

What The Deuces said:

From What I’ve read you’re talking bks

From what I've read, you are. Wow, that was easy!

You don't come across as the thoughtful type, but I'd suggest reading around a bit more. There are some hints in the post above where to start.

Yes there’s is loads on this this post that all suggests it handles a bit better than ‘not terribly well’

As before , you’re talking utter crap

[04helipilot]

Make sure your toupee is glued on with super glue with that air scoop there !!

[GeeTeeBee]

What The Deuces said:

Yes there’s is loads on this this post that all suggests it handles a bit better than ‘not terribly well’

As before , you’re talking utter crap

No you're talking utter crap. I love how this works, thanks for the tip!

[GeeTeeBee]

Phobos50 said:

You do come across as a bit pompous.

Yes, the F1 is flawed. The F40 is flawed. The Countach is very flawed. The Miura is dangerously flawed (Carburetor fire, front end weight issues when fuel tank low).... and yet these vehicles are held in such high regard by so many people.

I have no experience of the above cars unfortunately, but my Elise is flawed - and i absolutely love everything about it. Its flaws are a make-up of its overall character and i wouldn't chamge anything on it.

The cars you mention are in a category where relatively few have experienced them, so by definition most people who hold them in high regard do so vicariously.

No many icons of yesteryear stand up to first hand scrutiny all that well. Some do, but in my experience, they're the exceptions. And I say that as someone who doesn't really like properly modern cars.

Elises are flawed, but not in any way that fundamentally clashes with the ethos or remit of the car. And given the price point, I'd say the flaws are entirely acceptable. I'd also say that with the F1, given the stratospheric rep, the original list price and current valuations, if it does have handling flaws that detract from the driving experience and are enough to have the few owners that really drive the things seeking remedies, that's harder to forgive.

[What The Deuces]

GeeTeeBee said:

What The Deuces said:

Yes there’s is loads on this this post that all suggests it handles a bit better than ‘not terribly well’

As before , you’re talking utter crap

No you're talking utter crap. I love how this works, thanks for the tip!

Nope, according to the finest motoring writers in the land (Frankel et al) it’s handling is pretty good, according to you handles ‘not terribly well, ‘ from what you’ve read’

As above you’re talking ste

You = have read some stuff
Frankel = very experienced motoring writer
Sutcliffe = God

Both don’t agree with you I’m afraid. And that’s just them …