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
PlatinumZealot
516
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:45 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.
To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.

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

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

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:43 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.
To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.
That might be a good anthology. The internals sourced from outside, once a master of engineering but now obsolete with the introduction of much more precise and efficient quartz and digital.

Although I do appreciate the effort going into a nice automatic, I stick with my Apple Watch.

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

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

Post

Natrually aspirated works well in light weight cars.
McLaren P1 and its derivatives have to use all sort of electronic maps to make the cars even fun to drive. Driver's throttle input to the engine is not even real.

This T. 50 is for purists. Those who want the thinnest of membranes between them and the track.

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

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

Post

Jolle wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:51 pm
PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:43 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.
To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.
That might be a good anthology. The internals sourced from outside, once a master of engineering but now obsolete with the introduction of much more precise and efficient quartz and digital.

Although I do appreciate the effort going into a nice automatic, I stick with my Apple Watch.
Apple watch is for pansies! :twisted: I have smart phone already.

I do have a smart watch that has real hands and gears though. The phone will syncronise the watch and the geartrain has encoders/positioners that report the exact location of the hand to the smart phone.
How could I buy circuit board with a screen (apple watch) and I'm a mechanical geek? Lol.

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

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

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:52 pm
Natrually aspirated works well in light weight cars.
McLaren P1 and its derivatives have to use all sort of electronic maps to make the cars even fun to drive. Driver's throttle input to the engine is not even real.

This T. 50 is for purists. Those who want the thinnest of membranes between them and the track.
It works well but it’s still a myth that NA is better in light cars.

A high output small engine will be lighter for the same power. A 636cc sport bike engine is capable of over 300bhp when turbocharged in road race trim (40min races). That would take a much bigger and heavier engine NA to equal that.

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

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

Post

PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:55 pm
How could I buy circuit board with a screen
Image

Why not? I think they're neat. It was $395 USD in 1973 (more than a Rolex Submariner), about $2,305 USD inflation adjusted . Very stylish.

I think digital quartz watch collecting is a valid and interesting hobby. Calculator watches are particularly desirable! :D

For example, there is no expectation for a modern vehicle to have mechanically driven gauges (be it speed, tachometer, oil pressure etc), even though such gauges are traditional. Folks seem more than happy with electronically-driven "analogue" gauges taking a signal from the CANBUS system!? :?:
PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:55 pm
I'm a mechanical geek? Lol.
There are plenty of other mechanical things to collect like typewriters, electromechnical (pre-transistor) calculators etc. Regardless I think electrical stuff is perfectly interesting -- don't you think traditional orthicon tube video cameras are fascinating? A CRT in reverse -- amazing! :)

Image
Olivetti Electrosumma Electromechanical Calculator
PlatinumZealot wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 2:43 pm
To me it is like a machanical swiss watch. Traditionally desireable elements of the car as a machine refined to perfection.
Just because you are a mechanical geek, does that really mean you demand your car to have a nice mechanical carburettor instead of electronic fuel injection!? :wtf: Does it really matter that much if there are some transistorised integrated circuit chips here and there working their magic? :wink:

I thought I wanted a mechanical throttle cable & hydraulic power steering in my everyday car (to make it more like my track day car), but overall the whole change to an older everyday car was a disaster (not because of the lack of features but just because of the poor quality & poor suspension layout of the 2002 Honda Integra Type R compared to my 1993 Honda Civic track day car which I still prefer). The DC5 Integra (and nearly identical & wildly overrated EP3 Civic) just came from a particularly bad era of Honda cost-cutting in 2001-2005 -- everything before and after is much better built to Honda's usual standards. The Integra just wasn't as good for an everyday car as the 2009 Civic Type R which it replaced. :(

Therefore, a well configured drive-by-wire throttle with a properly programmed traction control and ESP is not a big problem IMO.
Last edited by JordanMugen on Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Andres125sx
362
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

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

Post

Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:26 pm
To me V12's, fans, and stuff like that, is 70ies F1 tech.
So now FIA rules dictates what is up to date or not? I know FIA allowed the use of the fan car for the rest of the season but Brabham, for whatever reason, decided to not race it again, but if it would have been declared legal it would be the norm nowadays

Fan cars were the biggest discover in F1 history. No other idea improved cars perfomance a quarter of what fans did. They did qualify with full tanks and even so started from first row. What other new idea could get remotedly close to this? None. Not even active cars/suspensions.

It would have erradicated dirty air problem too :wink:


GM t50 fan is very different btw, as Murray explains in the video it makes very different functions, it´s the XXI century version of a fan car. How can that be outdated?

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

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

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:54 am
How can that be outdated?
Does it comply with the 2018 EU WLTP manufacturer average emissions limit of 95 g CO2/km, reducing to 68 g CO2/km by 2032?? :wink:

Given a 900cc 2-cylinder FIAT 500 already produces 90 g CO2/km I suspect the T.50 does not comply with this modern day regulation, and GMA is using the low volume loophole for manufacturers making less than 10,000 vehicles per annum...

Likewise WLTP requires vehicles to meet driveby noise limits in their loudest modes -- so no more obnoxious factory sports exhausts after 2018. Yet again however, I believe manufacturers under 10,000 units per annum are exempt and are allowed to fit old-fashioned obnoxiously loud factory sports exhausts!

By definition, this makes the T.50 outdated, doesn't it, as it does NOT comply with the basic regulations of the present day? GMA is just using the exemption for niche manufacturers on emissions and noise?

Manufacturers like Honda and BMW that do need to comply with the average fleet emissions, choose to make their supercars like NSX and i8 as hybrids, there must be a reason for that? It is certainly a more socially acceptable 'look' than the vehicles being non-hybrid -- the NSX and i8 are socially responsible by having that electric-only quiet mode for pootling around town without disturbing alfresco diners, none of that obnoxious supercars of Monaco business :wink: . Then beyond that there are manufacturers like NIO who choose to make their supercars as electric, which makes them easily compliant with the emissions regulations.

Image

The high emissions output, given the modern day regulatory drive to continually reduce vehicle emissions, surely has to be a criticism of the T.50 and GMA's (lack of) range of vehicles, compared to similar but zero emission supercar vehicles from manufacturers like NIO? :wtf:

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

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

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:54 am
Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:26 pm
To me V12's, fans, and stuff like that, is 70ies F1 tech.
So now FIA rules dictates what is up to date or not? I know FIA allowed the use of the fan car for the rest of the season but Brabham, for whatever reason, decided to not race it again, but if it would have been declared legal it would be the norm nowadays

Fan cars were the biggest discover in F1 history. No other idea improved cars perfomance a quarter of what fans did. They did qualify with full tanks and even so started from first row. What other new idea could get remotedly close to this? None. Not even active cars/suspensions.

It would have erradicated dirty air problem too :wink:


GM t50 fan is very different btw, as Murray explains in the video it makes very different functions, it´s the XXI century version of a fan car. How can that be outdated?
The Chaparral 2J in 1970 beat the Brabham fan car to the punch by 8 years.

As much as F1 thinks it’s the pinnacle of vehicle evolution, the prototype sports car stuff has almost always lead the charge... Can Am, IMSA GTP, etc.

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

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

Post

This car reminds of the Grand Seiko Spring drive. Still traditional at it's core but with high tech control. Manufacturers must continue to refine traditional technologies. I won't use the word old. You can bet your bottom dollar that the car was developed with the latest tools and materials the industry has to offer.

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:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:50 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:54 am
How can that be outdated?
Does it comply with the 2018 EU WLTP manufacturer average emissions limit of 95 g CO2/km, reducing to 68 g CO2/km by 2032?? :wink:

Given a 900cc 2-cylinder FIAT 500 already produces 90 g CO2/km I suspect the T.50 does not comply with this modern day regulation, and GMA is using the low volume loophole for manufacturers making less than 10,000 vehicles per annum...

Likewise WLTP requires vehicles to meet driveby noise limits in their loudest modes -- so no more obnoxious factory sports exhausts after 2018. Yet again however, I believe manufacturers under 10,000 units per annum are exempt and are allowed to fit old-fashioned obnoxiously loud factory sports exhausts!

By definition, this makes the T.50 outdated, doesn't it, as it does NOT comply with the basic regulations of the present day? GMA is just using the exemption for niche manufacturers on emissions and noise?

Manufacturers like Honda and BMW that do need to comply with the average fleet emissions, choose to make their supercars like NSX and i8 as hybrids, there must be a reason for that? It is certainly a more socially acceptable 'look' than the vehicles being non-hybrid -- the NSX and i8 are socially responsible by having that electric-only quiet mode for pootling around town without disturbing alfresco diners, none of that obnoxious supercars of Monaco business :wink: . Then beyond that there are manufacturers like NIO who choose to make their supercars as electric, which makes them easily compliant with the emissions regulations.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar ... -ep9_0.jpg

The high emissions output, given the modern day regulatory drive to continually reduce vehicle emissions, surely has to be a criticism of the T.50 and GMA's (lack of) range of vehicles, compared to similar but zero emission supercar vehicles from manufacturers like NIO? :wtf:
We don't know how many child slaves mined the rare earth metals that make that big ole battery. And not to mention how many blue whales will die when the battery land fill leeches into the ocean. :wink:

User avatar
Andres125sx
362
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

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

Post

JordanMugen wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 3:50 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:54 am
How can that be outdated?
Does it comply with the 2018 EU WLTP manufacturer average emissions limit of 95 g CO2/km, reducing to 68 g CO2/km by 2032?? :wink:

Given a 900cc 2-cylinder FIAT 500 already produces 90 g CO2/km I suspect the T.50 does not comply with this modern day regulation, and GMA is using the low volume loophole for manufacturers making less than 10,000 vehicles per annum...

Likewise WLTP requires vehicles to meet driveby noise limits in their loudest modes -- so no more obnoxious factory sports exhausts after 2018. Yet again however, I believe manufacturers under 10,000 units per annum are exempt and are allowed to fit old-fashioned obnoxiously loud factory sports exhausts!

By definition, this makes the T.50 outdated, doesn't it, as it does NOT comply with the basic regulations of the present day? GMA is just using the exemption for niche manufacturers on emissions and noise?

Manufacturers like Honda and BMW that do need to comply with the average fleet emissions, choose to make their supercars like NSX and i8 as hybrids, there must be a reason for that? It is certainly a more socially acceptable 'look' than the vehicles being non-hybrid -- the NSX and i8 are socially responsible by having that electric-only quiet mode for pootling around town without disturbing alfresco diners, none of that obnoxious supercars of Monaco business :wink: . Then beyond that there are manufacturers like NIO who choose to make their supercars as electric, which makes them easily compliant with the emissions regulations.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar ... -ep9_0.jpg

The high emissions output, given the modern day regulatory drive to continually reduce vehicle emissions, surely has to be a criticism of the T.50 and GMA's (lack of) range of vehicles, compared to similar but zero emission supercar vehicles from manufacturers like NIO? :wtf:
I think you´re confusing terms here. When a manufacturer fit´s the exemption of a rule, it´s complying the rule as it´s not breaking it. When someone with asthma does not wear a mask, he´s not breaking any rule as people with respiratory problems are not forced to use it. This is the same, GMA is not forced to comply that rule, ergo it´s complying, ergo it´s not outdated because of this, as it´s not forced to comply.

Sometimes semantics are very important :wink:

User avatar
Andres125sx
362
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

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

Post

Hoffman900 wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:01 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 11:54 am
Jolle wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 9:26 pm
To me V12's, fans, and stuff like that, is 70ies F1 tech.
So now FIA rules dictates what is up to date or not? I know FIA allowed the use of the fan car for the rest of the season but Brabham, for whatever reason, decided to not race it again, but if it would have been declared legal it would be the norm nowadays

Fan cars were the biggest discover in F1 history. No other idea improved cars perfomance a quarter of what fans did. They did qualify with full tanks and even so started from first row. What other new idea could get remotedly close to this? None. Not even active cars/suspensions.

It would have erradicated dirty air problem too :wink:


GM t50 fan is very different btw, as Murray explains in the video it makes very different functions, it´s the XXI century version of a fan car. How can that be outdated?
The Chaparral 2J in 1970 beat the Brabham fan car to the punch by 8 years.

As much as F1 thinks it’s the pinnacle of vehicle evolution, the prototype sports car stuff has almost always lead the charge... Can Am, IMSA GTP, etc.
Both the thread and my post are about F1 and the Chaparral 2J never was a F1 car, this is not about who lead vehicle evolution or who´s the pinnacle of motorsports, this is about GMA T50 and F1 so your post should probably be in a different thread if we don´t want to derail it into another "is F1 the pinnacle of motorsports or not". Plenty of threads discussing that, this is different

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

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

Post

"Fan cars were the biggest discover in F1 history. "

My commented was in response to your verbiage of "discovery", which it wasn't. It was just applied to F1, but it was an old idea that was outlawed elsewhere almost a decade prior.

User avatar
Andres125sx
362
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

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

Post

Fair enough. But even so that Chaparral 2J never won a race despite several attempts, while Murray´s fan car won the only race it participated so even if it was not his discover, he made it work...

And he made it with style, as his car didn´t look like a shoe bow like the Chaparral :mrgreen:

Image

Image