RE: 50 years of Gordon Murray design!
Discussion
I'm not looking to decry the achievements of the man but it does feel that we periodically hear about a new car coming out that will sell in big numbers and revolutionise transport.
Yet it never appears!
Of course the F1 is amazing but it didn't exactly set the world alight in sales figures and what has there been since of actual road going models other than things that never materialise?
Yet it never appears!
Of course the F1 is amazing but it didn't exactly set the world alight in sales figures and what has there been since of actual road going models other than things that never materialise?
I forgot the BT44 Martini livery- also a shining example of integration of sponsor colours in a racing car's shape.
The F1 didn't set the world alight in sales figures? At that price it wouldn't , really would it ? Nor did the 250 GTO , Gordon Keeble or AC 289 (other gorgeous designs are available ) . The Toyota Corolla did though - that showed 'em alright .
I once had the privilege of interviewing .Gordon Murray and doubt if I have spoken to a more articulate , smarter or more fascinating man . Undoubtedly inspired by Colin Chapman and a worthy successor in many ways.
The F1 didn't set the world alight in sales figures? At that price it wouldn't , really would it ? Nor did the 250 GTO , Gordon Keeble or AC 289 (other gorgeous designs are available ) . The Toyota Corolla did though - that showed 'em alright .
I once had the privilege of interviewing .Gordon Murray and doubt if I have spoken to a more articulate , smarter or more fascinating man . Undoubtedly inspired by Colin Chapman and a worthy successor in many ways.
corby said:
bleunos said:
But it's such a shame so few of us ever get to experience it, I mean how many admittedly brilliant cars he's designed have ever been made? Seems such a waste, he was talking about clever composite materials and game changing cheap strong non corroding lightweight designs production methods fully 20 years ago - and were still waiting.
Just make a cheap simple light clever manual rwd 2 seater sports car nearly as fun as a caterham and nearly as practical as an MX5 for about 30k FFS! (Rant over...sorry!)
Ahum, he helped developing the Midas, exactly what you were looking for.Just make a cheap simple light clever manual rwd 2 seater sports car nearly as fun as a caterham and nearly as practical as an MX5 for about 30k FFS! (Rant over...sorry!)
Thankyou4calling said:
Of course the F1 is amazing but it didn't exactly set the world alight in sales figures and what has there been since of actual road going models other than things that never materialise?
Trickle down effect. F1 changed things. First, Ferrari and Porsche respond to the new order , so on and so forth. Just like Chapman before. Gecko1978 said:
The issue is 30k gets you a Mx5 or Fiat 124 or a caterham westfield type car if you want a mix of the two then you need to spend more say 50 to 60k on a boxster etc and the market for them is small so as a business its hard to sell.
The Rocket could have been much, much cheaper.As much as I love it and respect Gordon Murray's work in general, the design of the LCC Rocket was at once both relatively conservative and very expensive to produce: the spaceframe was very labour intensive to build, the bespoke Wiesmann transmission was absurdly expensive, and a lot of other components were specced with little thought to their cost.
It would still be a very niche product, but it would be possible to build something very like the Rocket, but with a simple composite monocoque tub in (perhaps even using a hybrid monocoque/spaceframe based on the iStream ethos) and chain drive with electric reverse for less than £15K... and make it both lighter and stiffer than the original to boot.
peterg1955 said:
Apart from the fact he said RWD....
Well, you can't have it all. And a Midas is fantastic fun to drive, I really am not missing RWD. But that said Gordon Murray took it a bit further by building (for himself) a rear engined RWD Midas Bronze by dropping in an Alfa boxer. Too bad Midas never put this car in production. It seems Murray still owns it, but is driven by his son. It would be fantastic to see this car on display since it is ultra rare. I have only a few pics of it when it was in a shop for the wire loom.https://goo.gl/photos/ydpETQ3Dg8dF1hvg9
Equus said:
The Rocket could have been much, much cheaper.
As much as I love it and respect Gordon Murray's work in general, the design of the LCC Rocket was at once both relatively conservative and very expensive to produce: the spaceframe was very labour intensive to build, the bespoke Wiesmann transmission was absurdly expensive, and a lot of other components were specced with little thought to their cost.
It would still be a very niche product, but it would be possible to build something very like the Rocket, but with a simple composite monocoque tub in (perhaps even using a hybrid monocoque/spaceframe based on the iStream ethos) and chain drive with electric reverse for less than £15K... and make it both lighter and stiffer than the original to boot.
I guess that is what happens when you are designing/building the Mclaren F1 with no budget and designing another car alongside in your spare time, in theory the Rocket was cheap fun by comparison but still had to have the best of everything and be bespoke, it was never really built or planned as a commercial venture or have sales projection/targets in mind, im also not sure a fully stressed engine+chassis set up was that conservative for a road car in 1992 !As much as I love it and respect Gordon Murray's work in general, the design of the LCC Rocket was at once both relatively conservative and very expensive to produce: the spaceframe was very labour intensive to build, the bespoke Wiesmann transmission was absurdly expensive, and a lot of other components were specced with little thought to their cost.
It would still be a very niche product, but it would be possible to build something very like the Rocket, but with a simple composite monocoque tub in (perhaps even using a hybrid monocoque/spaceframe based on the iStream ethos) and chain drive with electric reverse for less than £15K... and make it both lighter and stiffer than the original to boot.
A cheaper Rocket wouldn't be a Rocket, it's unique but not perfect in much the same way an F1 is (which was also not a commercial success at the time) it offered an innovative approach to minimalist motoring previously only the preserve of the Caterham 7 style cars. It also helped spawn a whole genre of bike engined kit cars and low volume track day specials which can be had for around £15k today.
Rocket. said:
I'm also not sure a fully stressed engine+chassis set up was that conservative for a road car in 1992!
De Tomaso had done it with the Vallelugna in 1965... and of course there have been countless race cars back to the Lotus 49 and beyond (Lancia D50 back in the 1950's) that used fully or semi-stressed engines. The idea isn't radical merely questionable (for engine longevity and NVH) in a road car.Rocket. said:
A cheaper Rocket wouldn't be a Rocket.
No, of course it wouldn't. My point was merely that Murray (and Chris Craft) had chosen to build a very expensive product in what is actually a very conventional way. It was a good idea, but it could have been a great idea, had it been both technically more adventurous and 1/3rd the price.What has he been doing since the F1? That's a genuine question. All I hear about him is when he's in the motoring press moaning about SUV's, weight and everything else generally; I might well agree with him but then find myself wondering why he doesn't do something about it. As far as I can tell this much touted iStream manufacturing process is not dissimilar in concept to what the sport bike manufacturers, or Lotus even, have been doing for decades; maybe I don't grasp the genius of it.
Coatesy351 said:
generationx said:
AndySA said:
The MP4/4 is still the cleanest and best looking F1 car.
That is won just about everything and was driven by legends is almost secondary, it is that beautiful.
Yes indeed. Closely followed by the gorgeous and beautifully simple BT52, by all accounts designed and built in just 6 weeks and which then proceeded to win the World Driver's Championship!That is won just about everything and was driven by legends is almost secondary, it is that beautiful.
The wonderful thing about the MP4/4 is that it looks so simple and straightforward. To the untrained eye nothing looks crazily complex from the outside. It perfectly follows that old saying, which I think comes from the aviation world originally, that 'if it looks right it generally will be right'.
No, of course it wouldn't. My point was merely that Murray (and Chris Craft) had chosen to build a very expensive product in what is actually a very conventional way. It was a good idea, but it could have been a great idea, had it been both technically more adventurous and 1/3rd the price.
[/quote]
I'm fairly sure Chris would agree with you on the expensive part but GM would not! There is in theory a book coming out called '2 men's singular vision' the title says it all. Conventional and not technically adventurous ? I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I owned one for 9 years, it's a special little car with some very smart engineering solutions, yes they can be a little fragile in places and the handbrake design was rubbish, even a genius like GM has off days.
fblm said:
What has he been doing since the F1? That's a genuine question. All I hear about him is when he's in the motoring press moaning about SUV's, weight and everything else generally; I might well agree with him but then find myself wondering why he doesn't do something about it. As far as I can tell this much touted iStream manufacturing process is not dissimilar in concept to what the sport bike manufacturers, or Lotus even, have been doing for decades; maybe I don't grasp the genius of it.
it's a fair question. I don't know. Maybe nobody bought into his ideas? (i know he's been trying to get major manufacturers on board). maybe he became unfocused or difficult?
Maybe iStream's time will come...
Rocket. said:
Conventional and not technically adventurous ? I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Well, I'd be genuinely interested to know what elements of the design you think are technically adventurous (with photos, if you have them 
). I've never owned one (would love to), but I'm pretty familiar with the design and have had chance to inspect one close up; as far as I can see, it's thoroughly competent, but very conventional. Nothing that would surprise a 1970's Formula Ford designer, really (and quite a few bits that would have been regarded as unsophisticated in FF, even by the 1990's... outboard suspension for example)?Edited by Equus on Thursday 3rd August 17:23
fblm said:
As far as I can tell this much touted iStream manufacturing process is not dissimilar in concept to what the sport bike manufacturers, or Lotus even, have been doing for decades...
Even closer to the 'panelised spaceframe' of the Reynard Inverter.I guess the main innovation has been trying to develop the production methods for medium-scale, localised production. Question is, with increasingly globalised production of everything, is it an answer to a question that nobody is asking?
You mentioned the Weissmann transaxle in a previous post, an clever solution to the issue of bike engine chain drive I always thought, not only that but it also had within it 2 sets of ratios, a reverse and a LSD, the higher ratios dropped the final drive enough that it's actually a car that can cover fairly big distances without being too tiring and then change without stopping to the shorter gearing when in the mood.
I'm not sure inboard suspension would really have improved the car save for aerodynamics perhaps.
One of the nicest touches were the headlamps on little gas struts that overcentre to stay upright and then tuck away by hand, simple but effective.
The use of the Yamaha FZR 1000 engine in a car in 1992 was pretty advanced too, 1litre 130+ bhp 11,000 rpm in 400 kilos. Then there was the rest of the kit, Showa dampers, Brembos from an F3 car etc. FF and Caterhams were still running ford crossflows and 2 litre redtops back then I think ?
You sound like you have a good deal more engineering knowledge than I and your mind is made up so I doubt the above could convice you, but to many people at the time even though it looked like a classic, there was nothing else available ' for the road ' that got close to it's concept.
I'm not sure inboard suspension would really have improved the car save for aerodynamics perhaps.
One of the nicest touches were the headlamps on little gas struts that overcentre to stay upright and then tuck away by hand, simple but effective.
The use of the Yamaha FZR 1000 engine in a car in 1992 was pretty advanced too, 1litre 130+ bhp 11,000 rpm in 400 kilos. Then there was the rest of the kit, Showa dampers, Brembos from an F3 car etc. FF and Caterhams were still running ford crossflows and 2 litre redtops back then I think ?
You sound like you have a good deal more engineering knowledge than I and your mind is made up so I doubt the above could convice you, but to many people at the time even though it looked like a classic, there was nothing else available ' for the road ' that got close to it's concept.
AndySA said:
The MP4/4 is still the cleanest and best looking F1 car.
That is won just about everything and was driven by legends is almost secondary, it is that beautiful.
Whilst I love the 4/4, and it's results are impossible to argue with, it was primarily designed by Steve Nichols, with input from Gordon. Surely the most beautiful F1 car ever to grace a pit-lane, is the BT55.That is won just about everything and was driven by legends is almost secondary, it is that beautiful.
Gordon Murray designed for the '86 season, and nicknamed "The Flatmobile"
Not successful, mainly due to BMW unable to get the engine to work lying on it's side.
Rocket. said:
You mentioned the Weissmann transaxle in a previous post, an clever solution to the issue of bike engine chain drive I always thought
It's actually a bloody heavy, complex and extremely expensive solution.By comparison, have a look at the Quaife Powertec reversing differential if you want to see a much lighter, more compact and cheaper solution.Inboard suspension can also be used to give you rising rate, which can be very useful on an ultralight car like the Rocket.
The rest of the kit you mention is costly bling; not to say that it isn't high quality, but my point (and that of several others on this thread) would be that if you're a really clever designer, you ought to be able to achieve results without just throwing money at the problem. I do respect and admire Murray a great deal, but there are others out there who I respect equally highly, who have arguably done more with much less (Lee Noble, Jeremy Philips, Martin Ogilvie and - of course - Colin Chapman).
The concept of the Rocket was certainly admirable, though.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff