Gordon Murray to make a true successor to the F1- T50

  • Thread starter RocZX
  • 160 comments
  • 20,964 views
There's also the Teewave, TVR Griffith and a Yamaha concept that got cancelled. It's not that he hasn't tried making a lightweight affordable sports car, but no one wants to pick up on it and unlike the high end hypercar market I imagine it's difficult to foot the bill for this kind of car by himself.

https://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/en/products/previous/teewave.html
https://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/en/products/previous/tvr-griffith.html
https://www.autoblog.com/2020/04/28/yamaha-gordon-murray-sports-car-design-revealed/
 
And in every way its still the progeny of the McLaren F1, but in no way a retro pastiche. Just like a continuous thread between the peak analogue supercars.
 
Its the Only Hyper/Super Car I'm interested in, the rest are just exercises in what extreme can we push at the expense of everything else. This seems more of a considered real world application of how to maximise the drivers experience and still go quick and push some interesting developments.

It may look a little pedestrian compared to others but that's fine by me. If I had the £££'s just lying around then I'd purchase one.
 
The only thing I'm not a big fan of is the gratuitous "I'm fan" element on the back. Is it really necessary for it to be that shape?

Other than that, this thing is great.
 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
The only thing I'm not a big fan of is the gratuitous "I'm fan" element on the back. Is it really necessary for it to be that shape?

Other than that, this thing is great.
Click to expand...

Agree, out of the whole design the fan on the back is a little cheap looking.
 
I don’t know if Fred’s video goes into it, but I highly suggest watching the video Harry’s Garage has about it with Gordon.

Gordon early on goes into the details of this car’s potential racing career, explaining how they spent a long time discussing with the FIA/ACO about LeMans with a "GT/Supercar Class" with several manufacturers interested & backed out because the program switched the formula to a LMP2-chassis based which didn't interest Gordon at all. He says they've switched their interest to Stephane Ratel who is proposing a BPR like series in a 2-part lay out. It appears Stephane is approaching multiple manufacturers and contacting their clientele about creating a club where owners who join, will be able to pick a prestigious circuit (in Europe to start) where they will get to attend a GT race on Sunday, and will keep the circuit open Monday & Tuesday for the owners to race their cars. He says the 2nd part, if enough interest is shown, hopes to make it a support race for the GT races.
 
Last edited:
McLaren
I don’t know if Fred’s video goes into it, but I highly suggest watching the video Harry’s Garage has about it with Gordon.

Gordon early on goes into the details of this car’s potential racing career, explaining how they spent a long time discussing with the FIA/ACO about LeMans with a "GT/Supercar Class" with several manufacturers interested & backed out because the program switched the formula to a LMP2-chassis based which didn't interest Gordon at all. He says they've switched their interest to Stephane Ratel who is proposing a BPR like series in a 2-part lay out. It appears Stephane is approaching multiple manufacturers and contacting their clientele about creating a club where owners who join, will be able to pick a prestigious circuit (in Europe to start) where they will get to attend a GT race on Sunday, and will keep the circuit open Monday & Tuesday for the owners to race their cars. He says the 2nd part, if enough interest is shown, hopes to make it a support race for the GT races.
Click to expand...
That's basically what they did with the F1. It would be great if this thing could legit be integrated into GT3 somehow though. Or maybe, MAYBE...if Murray makes money off this thing they could pull a Glickenhaus and develop an LMH out of it.

Some of you have probably noticed that I'm really annoyed by the street hypercar idea lately but something about this car isn't bothering me. Not sure why really. Something about the mission and the stated goals of the car seems way more genuine than all these other hypercars which all strike me as vanity. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but I like this one. Perhaps I'll be annoyed when I see a T50 casually strolling Hollywood but because it's manual I have a feeling that won't happen very often.
 
Keef
That's basically what they did with the F1. It would be great if this thing could legit be integrated into GT3 somehow though. Or maybe, MAYBE...if Murray makes money off this thing they could pull a Glickenhaus and develop an LMH out of it.

Some of you have probably noticed that I'm really annoyed by the street hypercar idea lately but something about this car isn't bothering me. Not sure why really. Something about the mission and the stated goals of the car seems way more genuine than all these other hypercars which all strike me as vanity. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but I like this one. Perhaps I'll be annoyed when I see a T50 casually strolling Hollywood but because it's manual I have a feeling that won't happen very often.
Click to expand...
They won't. That's what Gordon is specifically referring to when he says they discussed with the FIA/ACO about a GT/Supercar class and switched it over to what the LMH is.
 
The proportions from the rear looks a bit off in my opinion, the rear wing looks too tall for its width and makes the car look like it can tip over with a gust of wind :lol: I'm surprised they didn't at least put wider fenders in, but that would increase the weight too much for Gordon I suppose.

Comparing the specs to a similar car just to gauge how fast it will be:
Brabham BT62: 700PS, 972kg, 1200kg downforce
T50S Lauda: 711PS, 852kg, 1500kg downforce

Brabham is 2.9 secs faster around Bathurst than a GT3 car, so T50S would be even faster and it's not unthinkable that it would maybe match LMP2 laptimes around a tight track :crazy:
 
Analysis by ex-Mercedes F1 aerodynamicist.


Even Gordon Murray can't escape some stylistic touches in terms of aero it seems. Though he said that their initial designs hit 1900kg downforce, so they actually had to dial it back a bit for user friendliness. I guess when you have that kind of margin you can afford to add a few styling touches.
 
The T50S rear end is surprisingly different to the T50. The whole rear bodywork has been changed, for the better IMO. I really dislike how the normal car has the tail lights, exhausts, and fan outlet all roughly in-line. The taillights appear to be bottom-justified along the fan centerline, but the exhausts are centered. It all looks a bit clumsy - there's too many circles competing. The S moves the exhausts down so they do not visually compete with the fan, and the tail lights are lower and tucked into the body (feels rather 90s) rather than bulging out of it like on the normal car. Again, much nicer and cleaner. Finally the way the S gathers the main graphic into a narrow & concise bar is just so much more coherent than the more organic but arbitrary grill shapes on the T50 which just looks a bit wandering in search of stylistic flourish. I'm still not the hugest fan of the fan, but the T50s does it way better. The original F1 was such a clear and coherent design with very minimal gratuitous "styling". The T50 is still along those lines, but the rear of the normal car is a bit too fussy for me.

maxresdefault.jpg


murrayt50_085.jpg
 
I like the styling and think its a pretty car but I still don't think it can top the F1 for beauty. The T50's fit and finish are on a whole other level of course but even despite the F1's semi trailer tail lights its still one of the best looking things ever made. Plus I love the chunky tires and am not a fan of the super low profile tires on either T50 version. The T50's five spokes are pretty bland in my opinion. A more timeless design would've been BBS-like treespokes or something like Volk or Work wheels. And that's not saying the F1's wheels are great because they're the bit dopey too but they're at least very unique. Pretty much anybody can instantly recognize a McLaren F1 wheel but I'm not sure these will age the same way. Either way, in the same vein as the F1, the base T50's design is still much more reserved and pleasant than virtually every other similar car.
 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
The T50S rear end is surprisingly different to the T50. The whole rear bodywork has been changed, for the better IMO. I really dislike how the normal car has the tail lights, exhausts, and fan outlet all roughly in-line. The taillights appear to be bottom-justified along the fan centerline, but the exhausts are centered. It all looks a bit clumsy - there's too many circles competing. The S moves the exhausts down so they do not visually compete with the fan, and the tail lights are lower and tucked into the body (feels rather 90s) rather than bulging out of it like on the normal car. Again, much nicer and cleaner. Finally the way the S gathers the main graphic into a narrow & concise bar is just so much more coherent than the more organic but arbitrary grill shapes on the T50 which just looks a bit wandering in search of stylistic flourish. I'm still not the hugest fan of the fan, but the T50s does it way better. The original F1 was such a clear and coherent design with very minimal gratuitous "styling". The T50 is still along those lines, but the rear of the normal car is a bit too fussy for me.

maxresdefault.jpg


murrayt50_085.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with the rear of the 50 in comparison to the F1, but this:
Keef
Either way, in the same vein as the F1, the base T50's design is still much more reserved and pleasant than virtually every other similar car.
Click to expand...
This is why I dg the T50. It feels more bespoke than the F1, to me. I mean, at least the T50 have its own taillights. You know? If those cost $100,000 to replace, so be it, but I'm glad they aren't from a totally different car.
I'm also glad it does look like the F1. If I bought one, I wouldn't feel shortchanged in design, if Jay Leno parked next to my T50 and his was the better looking, due to its simplicity in shape.
 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
The T50S rear end is surprisingly different to the T50. The whole rear bodywork has been changed, for the better IMO. I really dislike how the normal car has the tail lights, exhausts, and fan outlet all roughly in-line. The taillights appear to be bottom-justified along the fan centerline, but the exhausts are centered. It all looks a bit clumsy - there's too many circles competing. The S moves the exhausts down so they do not visually compete with the fan, and the tail lights are lower and tucked into the body (feels rather 90s) rather than bulging out of it like on the normal car. Again, much nicer and cleaner. Finally the way the S gathers the main graphic into a narrow & concise bar is just so much more coherent than the more organic but arbitrary grill shapes on the T50 which just looks a bit wandering in search of stylistic flourish. I'm still not the hugest fan of the fan, but the T50s does it way better. The original F1 was such a clear and coherent design with very minimal gratuitous "styling". The T50 is still along those lines, but the rear of the normal car is a bit too fussy for me.
Click to expand...

I never even noticed that the light/fan arrangement are different between the 2 cars. The exhaust is probably moved down for aero reasons (blown diffuser?), but I can't figure out why the light is lower in T50S. To avoid that part of the body hitting the rear wing endplate maybe?

Keep in mind also that the T50S is still not final. All the models they've showed have completely blacked out windows so it's just an empty body shell at this point. A lot could change until the final production model. I'm pretty sure Gordon wouldn't leave the rear grille open on the T50 unless it's for good reasons (cooling/aero), so the race car having even more power might need more cooling and openings as well. I think it should look less fussy in natural light. Studio lighting tends to overexpose everything.

As for comparisons with the F1, I'm still partial to the old girl. The T50 headlights look a bit too bulgy in my opinion, and the best design element of the F1 - the triple side strakes - are now just reduced to one. I always felt that it gives the F1 an illusion of moving fast even when standing still. The rear is too fussy as you said with the fan. Even knowing the F1 taillights come from a bus still makes it look better IMO.

I guess only time will tell if this will age as gracefully as the F1.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking before that it sounded like it has a funny firing order, from the way the resulting uneven cylinder filling comes out in the exhaust note at part throttle, almost reminiscent of Honda's RA273e.

Then that dyno video sort of solidified it for me by showing the exhaust groupings - assuming they're even firing triples, you can see they group 1-3-5 & 2-4-6; so surprisingly not quite the same 1-4-5 & 2-3-6 grouping as the Honda, but still unusual. Crucially, it's not the same 1-2-3 & 4-5-6 grouping of almost every other V12, and it won't sound the same as the F1 in the cabin.

Quite an interesting machine all told!
 
Griffith500
I was thinking before that it sounded like it has a funny firing order, from the way the resulting uneven cylinder filling comes out in the exhaust note at part throttle, almost reminiscent of Honda's RA273e.

Then that dyno video sort of solidified it for me by showing the exhaust groupings - assuming they're even firing triples, you can see they group 1-3-5 & 2-4-6; so surprisingly not quite the same 1-4-5 & 2-3-6 grouping as the Honda, but still unusual. Crucially, it's not the same 1-2-3 & 4-5-6 grouping of almost every other V12, and it won't sound the same as the F1 in the cabin.

Quite an interesting machine all told!
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder if there's any performance benefit (like reducing backpressure), or is it purely due to acoustic considerations?
 
Last edited:
I expect it is at least partly to exploit airbox resonances, similar to what happened in F1 in the V10 era.

If so, the firing order per bank for the exhaust groupings seen in the video is likely to be something like 1-2-3-6-5-4 (or its reverse), a 5/2 swap on a normal straight six, if you will. Those sequential ignitions from one end to another have been shown to improve cylinder filling, but I think it sounds less satisfying.

In addition, the firing order will most likely be sequential on each crankpin, so it would be cylinder 1 in the left bank followed by cylinder 1 in the right bank, then 2L, 2R etc. This is done to be kind to the crankshaft, which is why it was done in the BMW powering the McF1 the first time out (a lesson learned in WWII, and is also why Honda did the same). The engine is smoother running if you go opposites, i.e. 1L, 6R, and that's the traditional V12 order with the traditionally smooth 1-5-3-6-2-4 straight-six bank order too. But modern engine mounts, fueling and ignition control mean it's not necessary and most V12s use the BMW order now, keeping the standard bank firing order for exhaust and intake packaging convenience (1L, 1R, 5L, 5R etc.), to make the most power in the usual space available.

The bank firing order affects crank torsion, too, and as luck would have it, (after the WWII / Honda order), it's the sequential ignition which is the (second) best. It's likely they'd want to select the least excitable option in a high revving V12, which means the exhaust groupings are telling indeed - the cylinder filling is important with this engine.

Total torsional excitation from combustion forces (without considering separate harmonics individually)

Code: 
Order       | RMS   | Peak  | comment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1-5-3-6-2-4 | 100%  | 100%  | traditional firing order
1-5-4-6-2-3 | 99.5% | 99.9% | 3/4 swap
1-2-3-6-5-4 | 98.8% | 96.3% | 5/2 swap: "sequentials"
1-2-4-6-5-3 | 98.7% | 96.2% | 3/4 & 5/2 swap: WWII "Rechlin order"

The peak figure indicates the size of the torsional vibration (excitation) and might indicate things like cylinder-to-cylinder timing shift (power), bearing clearances changing (friction), material stresses for fatigue failure etc.

RMS is a good indication of the horsepower lost to internal vibration.


So, for DIN cylinder numbering, my prediction of the firing order of this Cosworth lump is something like 1-7-2-8-3-9-6-12-5-11-4-10
(Barring mirrors and rotations :dopey:)
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back