Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
User avatar
JordanMugen
70
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Gordon Murray's T.50 hypercar (to all intents and purposes a racing car, but one that comes with a 50,000 mile warranty and some level of road legality) features his philosophy of:

- Fan-extraction underbody downforce
- Active aerodynamics
- A naturally aspirated high-revving 3.9L V12 engine
- A H-pattern manual transmission
- A cable-operated throttle
[ source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8PMXCMrsM ]

Should Formula One's regulators learn from Murray's ideas, or is Gordon Murray just an old bloke stuck in the past? :?: :wink:

Image

wesley123
wesley123
237
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Learn what, exactly?
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
703
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

You mean should F1 go back and allow the old Brabham fan car concept be reused? :lol:
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

User avatar
RZS10
154
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Is the question "Should F1 teams iterate upon their 1992 car concepts"?

User avatar
randomdude
2
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:49 pm

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Fan extraction would be great, but only after shortening the wheelbase.
Then the cars can approach the tight bends like jetsprint boats

User avatar
jjn9128
515
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Yes/No/Maybe.

I don't think NA is ever going to return in F1 and a 3.9li V12 is just pipe dream. Even Indycar is going to some variation on a hybrid. The future, at least until the Formula E exclusive electric licence runs out, looks like 2 stroke with some sort of bio fuel. Which could be very interesting or it could be just as dire as the current power unit.

Proper manual gearboxes would be interesting... it's something Frank Dernie talks about a lot, i.e. many of the overtakes in the past mostly being a result of driver error missing a gear change. Over-revs or carelessness meant lesser/inexperienced drivers would break their cars too. You could also have a foot-cam of some heel-and-toe action :lol: teams won't go for it though, certainly not with the limit per-season.

Cable throttle again is something which could lead to driver error, but just isn't feasible with the hybrid systems. Having a linear pedal-torque map makes the cars/power easier to drive. Not easy, but easier.

Active aero and fans could be an interesting development. Especially as the purpose of the fan is to suck away the boundary layer, it should increase energy in the wake.

The Gordon Murray add lightness approach should be at the forefront of the rule makers minds, but they keep adding weight to already tubby cars.

So while I agree with the opinion F1 probably should go more manual and simpler in it's execution, it wont. I'd love Red Bull to get tired of F1 and start their own championship along that principal, but they wont.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
Big Tea
153
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Most of the concepts are no longer allowed in F1 because they were too effective.
We are standing on the shoulders of Giants. So don't kick.

Ringleheim
Ringleheim
18
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:02 am

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Eventually Formula One will realize that is has more or less zero relevance to the automotive industry, and that is 100% about entertainment.

It exists to spend money, consume resources and be wasteful, all in the name of fun.

When F1 figures this out, we will have high revving V12 engines once again. I really believe this. Or at least hope this.

The change will come, most likely, when F1 is dying and facing extinction. As long as the sport is healthy, they will stubbornly try to do it their way.

I've been a fan since the mid '80s; F1 has never been more "sick" than right now.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
516
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:33 am
Gordon Murray's T.50 hypercar (to all intents and purposes a racing car, but one that comes with a 50,000 mile warranty and some level of road legality) features his philosophy of:

- Fan-extraction underbody downforce
- Active aerodynamics
- A naturally aspirated high-revving 3.9L V12 engine
- A H-pattern manual transmission
- A cable-operated throttle
[ source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8PMXCMrsM ]

Should Formula One's regulators learn from Murray's ideas, or is Gordon Murray just an old bloke stuck in the past? :?: :wink:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... bqsslo.jpg
To make things even more interesting Gordon himself said the car is more of a "GT" car than an all out track car.

One the cable throttle... I am sure Gordon said he initially planned for a cable, he didnt push it enough and Cosworth made it Drive by wire.. But it was good because the car got the capability to use different throttle maps?

Jolle
Jolle
222
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Ringleheim wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:01 pm
Eventually Formula One will realize that is has more or less zero relevance to the automotive industry, and that is 100% about entertainment.

It exists to spend money, consume resources and be wasteful, all in the name of fun.

When F1 figures this out, we will have high revving V12 engines once again. I really believe this. Or at least hope this.

The change will come, most likely, when F1 is dying and facing extinction. As long as the sport is healthy, they will stubbornly try to do it their way.

I've been a fan since the mid '80s; F1 has never been more "sick" than right now.
The high revving V12 only won one championship in the last 40 years and none during the mid eighties. We had flat bottom high powered turbo V6 engines then with a fuel limit and one team dominating, putting the whole field on a lap more then once.

User avatar
JordanMugen
70
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:36 pm

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:32 pm
The high revving V12 only won one championship in the last 40 years and none during the mid eighties.
Surely you have to include flat-12 engines used in the 10 years before that as well in those statistics? :)

If the displacement limit in 1966 had been increased from 1.5L to 4.0 or 4.5L, then perhaps 12-cylinder engines would have been more optimal than 8-cylinder ones? :) It would presumably have taken longer for the 1.5L supercharged option to become superior to a larger 4.5L NA option too.

As it was at 3.0L, the 12-cylinders like Hondas, Ferraris and Matras were a bit too heavy (and BRM 16-cylinder even worse), but that didn't stop Honda from building bikes with 250cc inline-six four-stroke engines (which would have been a still tiny 500cc in V12 form!).

This was Honda’s formula for four-stroke racing success: many tiny cylinders, four-valve heads and stratospheric engine speeds. ... The engineer put in charge of revitalizing the 250cc platform was 24-year-old Soichiro Irimajiri. Young Iri-san’s solution was simple: more cylinders! The RC165 he created, powered by an inline-six with six carburetors and 24 valves, was an engineering masterpiece.
https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/honda-rc166-250-6/

Image
Honda RC166 piston

Perhaps Murrary is indeed stuck in the past with a V12 engine obsession, when both Ford GT and Honda NSX engineers instead arrived at the V6 twin-turbo being the optimal supercar engine...

User avatar
randomdude
2
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:49 pm

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:56 am
Perhaps Murrary is indeed stuck in the past with a V12 engine obsession, when both Ford GT and Honda NSX engineers instead arrived at the V6 twin-turbo being the optimal supercar engine...
Too bad, I wanted a 4 banger twin scroll single turbo engine which sounds way better.

bill shoe
bill shoe
253
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:18 am
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:06 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:33 am
Gordon Murray's T.50 hypercar (to all intents and purposes a racing car, but one that comes with a 50,000 mile warranty and some level of road legality) features his philosophy of:

- A cable-operated throttle
[ source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8PMXCMrsM ]
One the cable throttle... I am sure Gordon said he initially planned for a cable, he didnt push it enough and Cosworth made it Drive by wire.. But it was good because the car got the capability to use different throttle maps?
Is it even possible to use modern ESC (Electronic Stability Control, which the car has) without an electronically controllable throttle?

Jolle
Jolle
222
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

bill shoe wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:30 pm
PlatinumZealot wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 6:06 pm
JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:33 am
Gordon Murray's T.50 hypercar (to all intents and purposes a racing car, but one that comes with a 50,000 mile warranty and some level of road legality) features his philosophy of:

- A cable-operated throttle
[ source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8PMXCMrsM ]
One the cable throttle... I am sure Gordon said he initially planned for a cable, he didnt push it enough and Cosworth made it Drive by wire.. But it was good because the car got the capability to use different throttle maps?
Is it even possible to use modern ESC (Electronic Stability Control, which the car has) without an electronically controllable throttle?
Of course, just cut the injectors or pre time the ignition.

You do need to have an ABS pump on the brakes with some extra trickery

User avatar
adrianjordan
84
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:34 am
Location: West Yorkshire, England

Re: Should F1 learn from Gordon Murray's T.50?

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:33 am
Gordon Murray's T.50 hypercar (to all intents and purposes a racing car, but one that comes with a 50,000 mile warranty and some level of road legality) features his philosophy of:

- Fan-extraction underbody downforce
- Active aerodynamics
- A naturally aspirated high-revving 3.9L V12 engine
- A H-pattern manual transmission
- A cable-operated throttle
[ source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NT8PMXCMrsM ]

Should Formula One's regulators learn from Murray's ideas, or is Gordon Murray just an old bloke stuck in the past? :?: :wink:

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... bqsslo.jpg
Murray, along with half the posters on here, is stuck in the distant past.

F1 has to move forward, not look back.

I also think fans have rose tinted glasses about the old F1. It wasn't that great.
Bring on the EV revolution!!