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.
theblackangus
theblackangus
10
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:03 am

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

Post

strad wrote:
Fri Aug 07, 2020 2:58 am
that Cosworth is pure engine porn.
I agree with you on this, that is amazing looking.
I want a reject to sit in my living room.

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 11:40 pm
I see!

Are these [Super GT/Super Formula] a twin-scroll turbo (or is twin-scroll unnecessary on a racing engine)? The wacky cam-cover to mount the inline 4-cylinder engine as a structural member is very unusual indeed! I'm pleased to the traditional attractive crinkle-red paint though.
Apart from reduce lag, the twin scroll helps to avoid interference betweens the near firing cylinders so I think it also makes the sound better. The Benetton B186 sound was awesome.

Image


JordanMugen wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:40 pm
Would you compromise on a 919-type V4 for F1 due to it's better torsional structural properties? I can certainly envision 1.06L V4 (i.e., chop two cylinders off the current engines, given they are already 90 degrees and suitable for a V4 firing order) hybrid with a much bigger electric power output as the next generation of Formula One motor.
As long it's an even firing engine it should do the trick for the sound.
I'd use at least a 2.0 L to push out realiabily at least a thousand of horsepower for a whole race.
And no hybrid. I'd rather use the kinetic energy of the car to make more downforce using the fan or air spoilers.
I wouldn't mind to put it transversally though, if I can use a fan for downforce.

edit: fixed image link
Last edited by randomdude on Sat Aug 08, 2020 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
strad
271
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

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

Post

@jjn9128.. Of course I am agreeing with you. I am not a teenage smart ass. :wink:
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
426
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

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

Post

To be honest, i do like the Cosworth V12 and how it'll sound and perform. Murray mentioned the weight, power, driveability and price all have an impact, for a 'daily driver supercar'.
I think that pays a lot of importance to the engine choice, and I think the sound will be simply astonishing.

Yes, the V4 turbo engine is lighter and 'more powerfull', but is also vastly more complicated and i wonder how well it'll work with the concept.

That said, let's remember it's essentially an upgraded MCL F1, arguably still the very best there is, so we're not talking about somebody that doesn't know jack fizz. Additionally, i wouldn't be surprised if special editions will arrive, like GTR versions, LM versions, etc. And we might see that turbo-powered, and we might see that also hybrid powered, who knows.

If Cosworth can produce a capable V12, I think they can produce a functional V4 hybrid too if that's what could bring another game to the table.

I also believe people are missing the market: Murray isn't making a car made for people to nerd over. He's making a car that'll make people with deep pockets wet dream come true, a blazingly fast, super fun to drive, REAL car, which SOUNDS like one too.

Boasting about a 4cyl turbo is really not the same as boasting about a V12.

We're talking about 2,5 million pricetag here.
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.

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

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

Post

That's right, and after all the effort he put into tuning the intake noise... why waste it on a turbo engine that would swallow it all up in a big ole' whistle?!

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

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

Post

I do like the car, but... to me it's like a greatest hits album of the seventies, remastered. Good, fun, but not up to date.

Hoffman900
Hoffman900
30
Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:02 am

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

Post

Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:05 pm
I do like the car, but... to me it's like a greatest hits album of the seventies, remastered. Good, fun, but not up to date.
I would go with it's the ultimate '90s supercar with modern techniques. It's almost like a swan song of Baby Boomer era supercars.

It's very cool, I'd be more than happy to have one, but it's not the ultimate end all be all car. However, cars are so fast now, I think people want a better driving experience than outright speed. Hence why the Singer 911s are so popular.

I do however love that engine. It's not revolutionary, but that's not the point.

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
426
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

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

Post

Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:05 pm
I do like the car, but... to me it's like a greatest hits album of the seventies, remastered. Good, fun, but not up to date.
Think of it this way.
IF it turns out this machine will obliterate all other 'supercars' on the road.....then which one would be more 'up to date'?
Also what IS 'up to date'?

If you suggest only hybrid/electric innovative propulsion is concidered up to date,
then what about all those brand new Corsa's, BMW's, Volkswagens that are classic 'otto' powered?
None of those up to date?

So, what's your vision of 'being up to date'?
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.

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

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

Post

Manoah2u wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:06 pm
Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:05 pm
I do like the car, but... to me it's like a greatest hits album of the seventies, remastered. Good, fun, but not up to date.
Think of it this way.
IF it turns out this machine will obliterate all other 'supercars' on the road.....then which one would be more 'up to date'?
Also what IS 'up to date'?

If you suggest only hybrid/electric innovative propulsion is concidered up to date,
then what about all those brand new Corsa's, BMW's, Volkswagens that are classic 'otto' powered?
None of those up to date?

So, what's your vision of 'being up to date'?
I think a hypercard is different for everybody. But to me it's that next gen tech to go fast. That's what all the others were about. The F40 with it's crazy V8 Turbo, the 959 with it's special four wheel drive and electronics, the carbon F1 and the P1, 918, LaFerrari etc etc. To me the next big hypercar is the Mercedes One, with the tiny turbo engine. I hope Porsche will build a 919 or something with their V4 from LeMans.

If it's just about going fast, get a big turbo in a super Catherham.

To me V12's, fans, and stuff like that, is 70ies F1 tech.

User avatar
strad
271
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

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

Post

Now you've gone and hurt my feelings Image
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
426
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

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

Post

Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:26 pm
Manoah2u wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:06 pm
Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:05 pm
I do like the car, but... to me it's like a greatest hits album of the seventies, remastered. Good, fun, but not up to date.
Think of it this way.
IF it turns out this machine will obliterate all other 'supercars' on the road.....then which one would be more 'up to date'?
Also what IS 'up to date'?

If you suggest only hybrid/electric innovative propulsion is concidered up to date,
then what about all those brand new Corsa's, BMW's, Volkswagens that are classic 'otto' powered?
None of those up to date?

So, what's your vision of 'being up to date'?
I think a hypercard is different for everybody. But to me it's that next gen tech to go fast. That's what all the others were about. The F40 with it's crazy V8 Turbo, the 959 with it's special four wheel drive and electronics, the carbon F1 and the P1, 918, LaFerrari etc etc. To me the next big hypercar is the Mercedes One, with the tiny turbo engine. I hope Porsche will build a 919 or something with their V4 from LeMans.

If it's just about going fast, get a big turbo in a super Catherham.

To me V12's, fans, and stuff like that, is 70ies F1 tech.
how is the Mercedes One 'up to date' when BMW provided Brabham a 1.5 L Turbo 4 cylinder engine that provided 1400 BHP?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M12

If we concider 'electric cars' and powerplants to be 'up to date', then perhaps it's time to investigate electric cars from the 1900's. Or the purposefully destroyed GM EV1 and GM EV2?

Also, which car uses a FAN ground effect? But it's not up to date because a brabham used it decades ago?

So, again, a 1.6 turbo V6 is up to date?
There are plenty of those engines around for many many decades.
Combined with a hybrid electric powerplant it delivers 1000 hp. Allright, so it's the figures that matter?
Or is it emissions?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying the V6T engine from Merc isn't gonna be impressive and technological,
but to call a brand new developed Cosworth V12 with a 13000 rpm redline, with 650 bhp, on a total car weighing ONLY 985 KG! The V12 is the LIGHTEST V12 ever built and all usabilty and drivable power is ground breaking.
NO TURBO.

Imagine if they make a turbo version from it. They'll easily hit 900 HP to 1000 HP from that alone, imagine twin turbos.

I think it's a bit short sighted to think it's a dinosaur just because it has a V12 to be honest. Matter of fact, i'd be curious to see Mercedes take out that V6 turbo engine without the hybrid part and see how it'll hold up against the Cosworth V12.
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.

User avatar
strad
271
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

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

Post

Right on Manoah2u!! I guess anything other than an hybrid inline four, twin turbo is old and outdated. :lol:
Like so many things, either you get on the train or you get insulted.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

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

Manoah2u wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:44 am


how is the Mercedes One 'up to date' when BMW provided Brabham a 1.5 L Turbo 4 cylinder engine that provided 1400 BHP?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M12

The Brabham motor is estimated to have produced that figure but no one knows as there is no evidence of it. It might have been 1100hp.

The Merc One is up to date because it has the performance and reliability. The old F1 turbo nutter engines often didn't even last a single lap. They also didn't run at anywhere near the huge headline figures during races.

But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good rant... :wink: :lol:
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
426
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:07 pm

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

Post

Yeah but fact remains, first of all, and to be fair, neither the T50 is YET on the road, NOR is the Mercedes One. Which honestly means we haven't seen proof of either performance nor reliability. Sure, we should expect quite a lot from Mercedes, but we're not there by any margin yet.

Then there's also the case of Nissan's 3-cylinder 1.5L Nismo engine punching 400 hp and weighing only 40 kgs. SUPPOSEDLY.
Sure, the Merc engine achives 1000 hp (supposedly) with 3 cylinders more and .6 liters more displacement, but heck, 3 cylinders, AND Merc does that WITH the hybrid engine.

But the thing is people still miss the fact. The T50 is not built to be the most technologically advanced car out there, like some nerdgasm techfest.
It's built to be the BEST drivable and uncompromised supercar that you gan get right now, JUST like the Mclaren F1 was back in it's day.

Perhaps another question also of value: would you concider the Aston Martin Valkyrie by Newey an old 70's revival dinosaur? That would be funny if ya did.
But that car ALSO has a V12 Cosworth engine BUT the T50's Cosworth Engine is even STRONGER and BETTER than that one. Just think about that.
Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools.

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

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

Post

Manoah2u wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:19 am
Yeah but fact remains, first of all, and to be fair, neither the T50 is YET on the road, NOR is the Mercedes One. Which honestly means we haven't seen proof of either performance nor reliability. Sure, we should expect quite a lot from Mercedes, but we're not there by any margin yet.

Then there's also the case of Nissan's 3-cylinder 1.5L Nismo engine punching 400 hp and weighing only 40 kgs. SUPPOSEDLY.
Sure, the Merc engine achives 1000 hp (supposedly) with 3 cylinders more and .6 liters more displacement, but heck, 3 cylinders, AND Merc does that WITH the hybrid engine.

But the thing is people still miss the fact. The T50 is not built to be the most technologically advanced car out there, like some nerdgasm techfest.
It's built to be the BEST drivable and uncompromised supercar that you gan get right now, JUST like the Mclaren F1 was back in it's day.

Perhaps another question also of value: would you concider the Aston Martin Valkyrie by Newey an old 70's revival dinosaur? That would be funny if ya did.
But that car ALSO has a V12 Cosworth engine BUT the T50's Cosworth Engine is even STRONGER and BETTER than that one. Just think about that.
What’s wrong with your caps lock?

Anyways. For the Valkyrie, I find it a shame that Aston Martin/RedBull went for a concept (the natural aspirated) that is, to me, if yesterday in such a stunning aero concept, although the design is very high tech.