Gordon Murray letter in Evo to Koenigsegg?

Anyone read it and see the reply? I havent. It is issue 53.

Yes, Mr. Murray was quite arrogant, if not rude. Christian Koenigsegg wrote back a very nice and polite reply that gently chided him and pointed out a few of his misconceptions. A very classy response.

Would there be any way for you to post it on the forum?

I am not into collecting stuff, generally...I did not keep the magazines.

Im sure Koenigsegg have it saved. Worst case Ill ask them.

Here is what he wrote regarding the fact that the Dauer 962 is faster:

"Firstly, our records are only valid for a true production car which has passed full EEC type approval and emmisions testing. There have been several other low volume specials (such as the Porsche 962) that have acheived a higher top speed)."

Gordon Murray, technical director McLaren Cars Ltd


Here is a streetregistred Dauer in Sweden:

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=41342

Factory visit:

http://www.bmwm5.com/articles/germany2/mpowertrip2001-3.htm

Does anyone have a scan of this letter!?


Please post it as I would love to see this letter! :bananasmi

Anyone?

Well I almost had a copy of the issue that sparked the comments:

http://i14.ebayimg.com/02/i/02/d1/e9/0f_1.JPG

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=6935819024&ssPageName=STRK:MEDW:IT

...but someone outbid me in the end. :(

Apparently this particular issue includes: "Interview - Gordon Murray"

There are a couple of copies of #53 up on Ebay right now. I shall try my best to pick one up.

>8^)
ER

:uhoh:

Well I almost had a copy of the issue that sparked the comments:

http://i14.ebayimg.com/02/i/02/d1/e9/0f_1.JPG

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=6935819024&ssPageName=STRK:MEDW:IT

...but someone outbid me in the end. :(

Apparently this particular issue includes: "Interview - Gordon Murray"

There are a couple of copies of #53 up on Ebay right now. I shall try my best to pick one up.

>8^)
ER

I've got that issue.... :)

I can retype the interview if anyone wants to read it... (I don't have a scanner, but I can type quickly. Just give me 24 hours. it's a 3 page interview)

i must have missed something. Why did Gordon Murray write a letter to koenigsegg?..what does it say etc?...im curiouse!

Gordon Murray, designer of the world's fastest production car, the McLaren F1, is not happy. He's passionate, he's a purist, and he's a bit narked. Not because the Bugatti might finally overtake the F1's top speed, but because, if it does, the general perception will be that the F1 has finally been bettered. Here he talks to John Barker.


JB: The F1’s long reign as the world’s fastest car is under threat from a couple of supercars, but chiefly, the Bugatti Veyron, which it’s claimed will get to 252mph

GM: The most pointless exercise on the planet has got to be this four-wheel-drive 1000 horsepower Bugatti. I think it’s incredibly childish this thing people have about just one element – top speed or standing kilometre or 0-60. It’s about as narrow minded as you can get as a car designer to pick on one element. It’s like saying we’re going to beat the original Mini because we’re going to make a car 10mph faster on its top speed – but its two foot longer and 200 kilos heavier. That’s not car designing – that just reeks of a company who are paranoid. It’s time we stopped saying ‘let’s try and beat this or that’. It just happens to be the McLaren in a lot of cases because it’s still considered to be the quickest, the best, the lightest, the stiffest, the whatever. If somebody came along, including Ferrari, but particularly, Bugatti, and said, ‘We’ve driven the McLaren, we’ve seen what makes a good car and we’re going to take all those elements and move it on a step – the technology, the weight, the safety, the size, that packaging, the luggage space, the torque, the way it delivers power,’ I would be going, ‘good for you. We’ve had our 10 year reign, take the crown.’ I know it’s going to cost millions to develop the Veyron, a monster thing that you can never see out of, can’t park anywhere, four-week drive, four turbos, 1000 horsepower. It may go faster but it won’t touch the F1 in any of the other important areas/ that’s what’s pathetic about it. I think it’s about time companies stopped doing that. I wouldn’t do it, I wouldn’t belittle myself to do that.

JB: what if they’d gone after all those other criteria and given it 1000 horsepower and 4wd?

GM: Four-wheel drive will never give you the experience that the McLaren gives you. It’s probably much safer when it’s wet and slippery, and more people could drive the car near its limits, but that wasn’t the aim with the F1. It’s absolutely true that 90 percent of the people, 90 percent of the time won’t drive the car at 90 percent of it’s capability. So why start with 4wd and carry all that weight and inefficiency? Ultimately for making the car easier to drive and getting a bit more grip, you’re losing out on the ultimate driving experience. Just 4wd is enough to say they’re never going to get an F1/ If you’re trying to build a car that more people can drive, more people can handle the power, 4wd is probably one of the easiest ways, but with the F1 we didn’t set out saying ‘we’re going to make the quickest car and we’re going to make it really easy to drive, so that 90 percent of the population can drive it’. No way. It was almost the opposite, it was, like this is probably going to be the last real car, without ABS, power steering or power brakes, and you’re going to have to push a bit harder on the brakes and to park it’s not going to be that easy but it’s not going to have anything getting in the way of the driving. It will probably be the last one like it. It’s a shame. I’d so much rather see that money and effort – sorry no, not the money, they can probably afford it – all those engineers and all that effort go into some new direction of sports car, maybe ultra lightweight or ultra nimble or ultra safe or something else rather than just trying to build the fastest car in the world.

JB: If you were making the F1 today, what power output do you think it could make?

GM: The same, because I still think – and the experts seem to agree – that the F1’s V12 is still the best road going, production, lasts-for-100,000-miles-type of engine ever made.

JB: Would you give the F1 any more power if you could?

GM: No. To put that into perspective, we did all the sums and my target was 450lb ft of torque with 550bhp, which we thought was about enough for 200mph – enough for a road car. But what we wanted was 1000 kilos, 450lb ft and a really square torque band, not a peaky engine and that what Paul Rosche (BMW Motorsport engine designer) delivered – with 627bhp for free – and although we missed the weight target by about 100 kilos, that the combination that gives you the instant buzz when you bang the throttle open. All horsepower gives you is top speed. Horsepower on its own is absolutely nothing.

JB: Presumably working on the SLR you’ve come to embrace the supercharger as a different way of gaining performance?

GM: No. Given a totally open choice I’d always go for normal aspiration, for everything: weight, complexity, efficiency, drivability. Supercharging is much better than turbocharging for all the obvious reasons but also has its drawbacks. If you want 500 horsepower, net, you’ve got to make 700 because 200 goes to driving the supercharger, and then you’ve got to cool that power. The small throttle response problem you can get over with bypass valves and things. It’ll never be normally aspirated, but it’s certainly a hell of a lot better than turbocharging.

JB: Do you think the Enzo moves things on?

GM: I think the brakes, probably, although I do hear that those aren’t working yet. Carbon brakes were something I desperately wanted on the F1, but we just couldn’t make them work. We’ve got them on the SLR

JB: What’s the problem?

GM: Temperature. In the early days with carbon/carbon, the problems were trying to get them to work when they were wet and cold. They were great when you got them warm. What we’ve managed to do is take the Mercedes-Benz carbon/ceramic programme, combined with electronic hydraulic braking, brake by wire and then the problem just becomes high temperature, because all carbon has exactly the same problem. Keep them cool enough and they’ll last the life of the car, but when you get over the oxidation temperature they disappear incredibly quickly. We used carbon brakes in F1 six or seven years before anyone else and for a long time had the piss taken out of us when they caught fire, but then when we got them to work we had a long period before anyone caught up. It was amazing when we were doing the tests – you could brake and brake and brake, then you’d get over I think it was 850 degC and they’d disappear in two laps, and the same is true now, to a lesser extent.

JB: How do you stop the user from overhearing them, what sort of constraints can you put on them?

GM: None. You just develop the car so that under any circumstance you can not generate that temperature, and that’s been the hard work and that’s what Porsche and Ferrari, I don’t think, can have done yet.

JB: The SLR must be quite a different project for you, being the first car you’ve done that isn’t mid-engined or mid-seated.

GM: It’s certainly mid-engined, very mid-engined, much more so that the Ferrari 575 or Aston Martin Vanquish. In a funny way it’s a bigger challenge than the F1 because the F1 wasn’t aimed at a market. I’m not saying it was easy but it was easier because when you’re aiming for a market you’ve got definitive things to aim for, and in our case it’s the 575 Maranello. Ferrari takes more than two-thirds of that world market and in that price sector, it’s a pretty good motorcar. We’ve driven it a lot, along with the Vanquish. It’s a nice challenge, a better challenge in a way to actually aim for something. To bring it right back to the Bugatti story, what we’re doing is we’re taking, with the Mercedes marketing requirements, a much more overall, rounded look at everything – quality, weight, safety, stiffness, luggage capacity, air-conditioning performance. We really did try to aim much higher in all areas. I have to say, I’ve driven the car a few times now and… well, the proof will be in the pudding, we’ll see what people will thing, but I think we’ve moved the game forward for front-engined supercars. We are aiming to build something that is world-beating, not just in performance but in all the other areas, and with a Mercedes-Benz star on it a lot of them are prerequisites – quality, serviceability, all that stuff.

JB: with around 550bhp and rear drive, traction and stability control are surely must-haves. Has it been interesting?

GM: It’s been interesting from a vehicle dynamics point of view to see how unobtrusive we can make it. The car has to be a Mercedes-Benz; above all it has to be able to be driven by anyone who is going to buy a Mercedes-Benz, so it’s got to have that stuff, but we’ve worked really hard with Mercedes-Benz people to make it as unobtrusive as possible so that it doesn’t wreck the car.

JB: Since the F1, have there been any supercars that have impressed or interested you?

GM: The only one in recent years which has tried to stick to the F1 formula is the Zonda. That’s come close. I saw that bloke [Horacio Pagani] when he first showed it. He saw me going by, dragged me onto the stand and said ‘I was really inspired by the F1. Look – it hasn’t got power this, it hasn’t got electronic that, it’s got a carbon central bit’. He was so enthusiastic and I thought at the time ‘God, I hope he makes it, because he deserves to’. Styling’s very subjective. I probably wouldn’t have styled it like that, but in recent years it’s the only supercar that is closest to what I would call the pure formula, without having aids and 4wd and therefore getting too heavy with all that stuff on. OK, it’s not superlight, but it’s pretty light. And it’s normally aspirated. As soon as you say 4wd or turbocharging you’re not even on the starting blocks. The old supercars, the EB110 and the Jag 220, on the track, when you can keep the turbos flying, you think ‘ah, it’s OK’, but on the road it’s a disaster. The Bugatti, if you were in a queue of four cars and waiting for the gap, you had to leave it in first gear at 6000 revs, in case you wanted to pass, which is crazy.

JB: What about the Edonis and Koenigsegg?

GM: You almost can’t count cars like the Edonis and Koenigsegg. With the Zonda you have to take the car seriously – the quality’s not bad, he’s selling the cars, people are driving them and using them and liking them. When there are 50 Edonises driving around and people are saying ‘This is good’, I’ll consider it a proper motorcar.

JB: The Koenigsegg is aiming for 250mph, too.

GM: People never learn lesson one, which is ‘don’t shout your mouth off before you’ve built the car’. Before the 1989 world crash there was an article in Road & Track, ’24 supercars you can buy’ and I think the only ones that actually arrived were us, the Jag and the Bugatti – three out of 24. With the Koenigsegg they’re talking about a horsepower figure and top speed for which you need a Cd of about 0.17 or something. It doesn’t add up. You shouldn’t do that. We didn’t say anything about our motorcar – nobody knew it was going to be middle seat until the launch – we just shut up and built it and then let people drive it.

i must have missed something. Why did Gordon Murray write a letter to koenigsegg?..what does it say etc?...im curiouse!

He didn't write a letter to Koenigsegg. He gave an interview to EVO (look up there ^^^^ ) which was pretty scathing of a few companies (and quite arrogant) and Christian Keonigsegg wrote a reply letter to EVO rebutting some of the points Gordon made...

....As is my understanding... :)

Incidentaly, the EVO Power issue is #052

I very much appreciate your typing that out, Kirium. Thanks from everybody.

I am still waiting for the F2, Mr. Murray....show us how it's done. $2,000,000, whatever it takes. Shut the other companies up.

Thanks, Kirium. I think I've learned a couple things after reading that of which I can't remember right now.

If i had realized what issue it was, i would have just scanned it :D

Thanks anyway Kirium

Now someone pipes up and says they can scan it... ;)

Gave me something to do...

Now someone pipes up and says they can scan it... ;)

Gave me something to do...

Nice work man!! Thanks for taking the time to do that for us. You Rock!

BTW: You can still scan it for us Chris. :naughty: ;)

= = = = = =

My response:

I think Gordon Murray has a right to be cocky if that's the description given to his responses here. Just look at his achievements through his career. You could even ignore the entire McLaren F1 project and just look at the countless inovations he made during his years in Formula One - when it comes to racing technology and engineering the man is a true genius.

Looking at what he achieved with the McLaren F1 is really the icing on the cake, for lack of a better metaphor. It didn't just beat the other cars on the market, it literally redefined that class of car and set the bar very high for future offerings to target.

It's been over a decade since the F1 was introduced, and nearly two decades since initial development began on the car in 1988, and its still regarded as one of the greatest road cars ever made, if not the greatest. The only place you could really say the McLaren F1 failed was on price, and well when you set out to build something uncompromising, you certainly can't ammend that rule in order to keep the price low.

I'm sure Christian Koenigsegg has an interesting reply, and I do look forward to reading it eventually, but GM hasn't said anything here that he should be ashamed of in my opinion.

Side note: Let us not forget Martin Brundle's comments in regards to the Koenigsegg in his "Supercars" DVD where it finished "surprisingly down in 8th place". Even the Bugatti EB110 and Jaguar XJ220 would finish ahead of it. Brundle's final words on the CC8S: "It's beautiful, but it's just not sorted - feels like an early prototype. Great car in there though." In the car's defense, maybe this was an early prototype, but why would you send a car like that out as an example of your best work for a review like this. Makes no sense to me, and if they didn't provide the car, then that's even worse as it would mean that it was an actual customer's car that felt that way. :confused:

>8^)
ER

I wouldn't say he said anything to be ashamed of... Just came across as overly aggressive.

GM talks of the virtues of torque, and he should realise the supercharged CCR will have close to the same torque as an AMG CL65 (1000Nm in my language) Just because he doesn't think forced aspiration is the best path to go down and he wouldn't choose it, doesn't make turbo technology a bad thing. But he slams it like it's just run over his cat...

EVO reviewed the Koenigsegg CC8S in issue 061 and tested it against the Enzo and Zonda, and all 3 cars received 5 stars. Brundle certainly doesn't seem fond of it. was he involved with the F1 tho??

A blend consistent blend of heft and deftness, the Koenigsegg requires a firm, guiding hand, but rewards with surprising sensitivity and precision

The Koenigsegg's massive V8 hammers away in brutal fashion, like a thunderstorm confined within the engine bay

The CC8S' chassis has been honed by the same man who did the Zonda: Loris Bicocchi. It seems to have the potential to do some things better than the F1.

The Bugatti on the other hand isn't even really comparable to the F1. It's totally different in concept to the F1, so I don't know why GM gets so aggressive to a product it seems he doesn't truely understand. Looking at interior photo's of the Veyron, it's totally covered in light cream leather, and has the option of coming with a diamond encrusted in the centre of the speedo needle. It's a powerful, luxurious, sleek supercar... not the ultimate distilled driving experience like the F1. It's not meant to be, but GM seems insistent that all cars should be built by the same principles that he put into the F1, which is pretty crazy IMHO.

I think GM's a brilliant designer, but he's come across as overly agressive to others in the industry who are just trying to build good cars.

You know - Clarkson loved the Koenigsegg too, but that's still not saying much. ;)

I'm more willing to take the opinion from a man like Martin Brundle on a car than someone who writes for a car magazine every month. No offense to those people really, but Brundle is most certainly in a different league. Tiff Needel is practically on the same level as Brundle and still feels the McLaren F1 is the best as well. I don't know if he's had a chance to sample the Koenigsegg yet, but I would give value to his thoughts on it if he had a differing opinion than that of Brundle.

>8^)
ER

I'm not trying to suggest that the CCR will better the F1. As an overall package, I highly doubt it, but I think it has the potential to excel in a few areas, top speed may be one of those things. GM basically says it's rediculous to judge a cars merit simply on top speed, but I know that the top speed of the F1 was written across the side of a transporter and is the most common bit of info people associate with the F1. People don't talk much about the purpose built hi-fi ect. they talk about top speed. it's one of the biggest bragging rights of a supercar, and perhaps GM feels that if that's eclipsed, the F1 will no longer be the king of the hill. I don't believe that, and either does Murray, but he has a pretty aggressive way of getting that point across...

I wasn't suggesting Brundle lacked credit, infact i'd say he's a far more accomplished driver than 99.9% of auto journo's (that guy from Auto motor und Sport is pretty quick around the 'ring tho... Horst von Saruma?) but I thought he was involved in F1 development, and probably feels the same way as GM toward the CC8S...

I totally agree with U Peleton! :iceslolan
I think Murray has completely right.

The Bugatti Veyron is a completely stupid car, it's so redicously.
Bugatti has always made weird cars, but in least I liked the EB110.
Koenigsegg is a beautiful car I think, but it does NOT have the raffinement of a McLarenF1. The Koenigsegg has NEVER proven to be that fast offically , and I doubt it can handle the McLaren any other way than top-speed in a straight.
I really love Ferrari, but again Murray has right, Ferrari has had their screwups through the years. I do not think the Enzo brakes are particulary durable....?

I can not see a car in this world even close to the McLaren F1 GT!
It is still years till we see something that can even come close to it performancewise. :smooch:

Just that last line - if you are suggesting that Brundle was in any way involved in the development of the McLaren F1 road car, I don't think he was. If I'm just reading it wrong, no worries mate.

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the Koenigsegg and nearly every exotic car ever made barring that god awful Edonis thing. I think the CCR looks spectacular and has the potential to unseat all the performance figures of the McLaren F1. I can't wait for a credible test of that car and I won't cry if it, or something else, should finally manage to upstage the F1s performance in some way.

>8^)
ER

I'm not trying to suggest that the CCR will better the F1. As an overall package, I highly doubt it, but I think it has the potential to excel in a few areas, top speed may be one of those things. GM basically says it's rediculous to judge a cars merit simply on top speed, but I know that the top speed of the F1 was written across the side of a transporter and is the most common bit of info people associate with the F1. People don't talk much about the purpose built hi-fi ect. they talk about top speed. it's one of the biggest bragging rights of a supercar, and perhaps GM feels that if that's eclipsed, the F1 will no longer be the king of the hill. I don't believe that, and either does Murray, but he has a pretty aggressive way of getting that point across...


I do agree with you on this one!
He seems pretty defensive. The top speed will probably be broken, but no one has yet.....

thanks for posting up that convo. I scim read it and i feel i got the jist of what murray was saying and i agree with him. Bugatti are being to narrow minded about breaking the speed record. I read in a report not so long ago that the Veyron will have to use special (expensive) tyres to go over 200mph, and test a race track showed it to bery very unstable and awful around a track. Spun many times on the straight!!!...The mclaren will always be one of the greatest acheivments in supercar design, plus i cant see the veyron winning le mans or competing in the GT series. Personely i think murray is one of the best designers around, i think they should make another mclaren f1 and no doubt that would beat any supercar going today. Granted they had a chance of doing that with the SLR but mercedes ruined that when they wanted it to be luxurious..if they stuck to mclarens weight limit of around 1300kg, it would have been a lot better!

This may be a little off thread but what record does the Dauer 962 hold? Is it world fastest street legal car as that can do over 250mph! or is that just unofficialy?

It's not meant to be, but GM seems insistent that all cars should be built by the same principles that he put into the F1, which is pretty crazy IMHO.

That is one thing in this interview that annoyed me about Murray. He kept talking about how the Zonda was the only supercar that "kept to the formula." Who says that there is a set formula for supercar design? Just because other companies did it differently, that doesn't make their method wrong. He came off very hypocritical, considering that the F1 was about breaking the molds on supercar design, thinking outside the box, etc. Murray seems like a very biased, close-minded individual. Like one of those annoying, snooty parents who think their kids are better than everyone else. He's also a little overly defensive when talking about the Veyron. Murray's aggressive demeanor lead me to believe that the idea of a car beating the F1's top speed record would bother him more than he lets on.

Also, just because I love the F1, that doesn't mean I'm going to take everything that Gordon Murray says for gospel. Don't get me wrong; I think that Gordon Murray is probably one of the greatest engineers/car designers ever. I just don't agree with some of the things he said in this interview.

Gordon also comments the Dauer 962 in a letter to Evo:

"Firstly, our records are only valid for a true production car which has passed full EEC type approval and emmisions testing. There have been several other low volume specials (such as the Porsche 962) that have acheived a higher top speed)."

Gordon Murray, technical director McLaren Cars Ltd

http://www.bmwm5.com/articles.php?id=15&page=3

Cockrocket, I think you're missing the point of the Veyron as well...

The F1 was inspired by single-seat racing. It's genes come from someone who used to build Formula 1 cars. It has a carbon monocoque ect. It's essentially a road car built along race car principles... light weight, low centre of gravity, small packaging ect ect...

The Veyron on the other hand...
Does not have racing aspirations (and is not homologated by the FIA (and the F1 homologation expires this year)), has an ultra-luxury interior (see below), 4WD, a W16 engine with 4 turbos ect ect... It'll be the ultimate high-speed continent-crossing supercar.

I can't honestly see how the 2 are real competitors... The only thing they'll have in common is an astronomical price and a very high top speed. apart from that, they're chalk and cheese. But Murray must be pretty defensive of that top speed title to be attacking Bugatti so fiercely. I don't think they're trying to build a McLaren F1, but Gordon seems to think that everyone should follow his formula... What a boring world it'd be if everyone did it his way...

From Forbes.com
Forbes Fact
Among the many options a Veyron buyer can order, are two one-carat diamonds, cut with 16 sunray facets (16 being the number of cylinders the engine features). The two diamonds reside, respectively, on the speedometer needle, and at the center of something Bugatti calls the "powermeter."
http://images.forbes.com/images/2003/09/02/vow2_420x210.jpg

http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1232859465__Homologation_Country.pdf

Also, where did you read the report on the Veyron's high-speed instability (in a straight line no less) I find it hard to believe that models haven't spent many hundreds of hours in wind tunnels honing all sorts of dynamics, before even turning a single wheel on the track. sounds highly unusual...

Peleton, I thought i had read something about Brundle doing some test driving of the F1 during development. i've just had a flip thru DA tho and can't find it, so I must have been mistaken... my bad :)

you do know that Bugatti changed the Veryons top speed to around 220-230 (can't remember exactly)?

...The Veyron on the other hand...
Does not have racing aspirations (and is not homologated by the FIA (and the F1 homologation expires this year)), has an ultra-luxury interior (see below), 4WD, a W16 engine with 4 turbos ect ect... It'll be the ultimate high-speed continent-crossing supercar.Okay so knock off the seemingly unnecessarily complicated engine and transmission and you have that car already - the Gordon Murray developed SLR.

Also, where did you read the report on the Veyron's high-speed instability (in a straight line no less) I find it hard to believe that models haven't spent many hundreds of hours in wind tunnels honing all sorts of dynamics, before even turning a single wheel on the track. sounds highly unusual...Not always, no. They got it the right way round with the F1 (wind tunnel dictating the shape) but VW couldn't wait to show the world how exciting a company they really were and what their stylists had been working on. If you want to see just how much a car's styling can change once the CFD work has been done, try comparing the Vision SLR with the MM SLR.

I can't honestly see how the 2 are real competitors... The only thing they'll have in common is an astronomical price and a very high top speed. apart from that, they're calk and cheese. But Murray must be pretty defensive of that top speed title to be attacking Bugatti so fiercely. I don't think they're trying to build a McLaren F1, but Gordon seems to think that everyone should follow his formula...What a boring world it'd be if everyone did it his way... This I have to disagree on!


I don't think the interview shows that GM is worried about the F1's top speed but rather, like you said, that these are two very different cars and he is sick of irritating journo's asking the same stupid questions (not evo of course). He was able to take a completely clean sheet of paper for the F1 (that being the difference) and spents years getting it just right, for someone to come along and say "Oh it looks like this new car is going to have a higher number in this little box than your car. How does it feel that your car is now a pile of crap..."

Not always, no. They got it the right way round with the F1 (wind tunnel dictating the shape) but VW couldn't wait to show the world how exciting a company they really were and what their stylists had been working on. If you want to see just how much a car's styling can change once the CFD work has been done, try comparing the Vision SLR with the MM SLR.

I can understand that with cars like the Ford Focus and other "real world" cars, that CFD and wind tunnel work would be an after thought, but I can't imagine that with a car with such a high claimed top speed that aero would have been an afterthought. I'm sure it too has a flat undertray and front and rear diffusers and a speed-sensitive spoiler. Hard to believe that all these things would give the car such a degree of negative downforce (lift?) as to cause it to spin in a straight line.

This I have to disagree on!

I for one can't afford an F1, and in all likelyhood, never will, and i probably speak for all but a few thousand indviduals on the planet. Variety is the spice of life. I think the F1 would be just a fraction less special if everyone on the planet had one... And who's to say that the F1 is the best way to do things? I'll say without hesitation it's the best that's been built to date, and I'm just as much a fan of the F1 as anyone else here (so don't think i'm trying to big-note the Veryon or any other car, or bring down the F1), but I'm sure things can be improved upon. We'd still be living in caves wearing loin cloths if someone hadn't decided to advance common accepted principles on what makes a good weapon... we went from a club to an axe with a cutting edge, evolution. but i'm sure whoever said the club was the be all and end all of weapon design had his fans, but someone decided it could be done differently, and that's not a bad thing. Just because Gordon says cars that don't follow his formula are crap, doesn't mean they are...

for someone to come along and say "Oh it looks like this new car is going to have a higher number in this little box than your car. How does it feel that your car is now a pile of crap..."

I don't think anyone is suggesting that because "X" supercar comes along and posts a higher top speed, that the F1 instantly become scrap carbon fibre. And even when a car does that, I'm sure car enthusiasts won't think the F1 is junk. It doesn't faze me wether a car comes along and does that, because i'll still think the F1 is one of the best cars ever made. Like I said, I'm not trying to praise the Veyron, and I'm not trying to bring down the F1. What I was getting at originally, was that just because GM bags all these supercars because they don't follow his principles and his formula, doesn't mean that he's right, and doesn't mean they're bad cars. He was openly aggressive and attacking these cars (and i'd say he probably hasn't driven them either) just because they don't follow his formula... Which I think is incorrect.

BTW does anyone have the letter Christian Koenigsegg wrote in response to Gordon's interview sitting around in a magazine somewhere?? I'm dying to read it.. :)

except the SLR looks a lot nicer and not like a pimped out VW beetle..i think the veyron is going to be a complete flunk. Out of 300 that will be built only 50 have been sold and that is not normal for a "amazing" supercar as they tend to be sold before they are made!...i hate the veyron..anoying that it has taken over a mclaren thread!

If you guys didn't know,Michael Schumacher is getting a Veyron. (Yes believe it or not a Veyron). Remember MS had a yellow Bugatti EB110. (he doesn't have it anymore.)

If I'm right, MS has never owned a McLaren F1. Does anyone know his opinion on the F1. (a quote?)

he may get sacked if he bought an oposing teams most famouse road car. lol. Did MS get a enzo. i heard they were all sold and that he cudnt have one but did he manage to get one in the end?

Cockrocket, I'm curious as to where you've gotten your info on the Veyron, particularly about it spinning in a straight line at speed and the sales figures... For someone who claims to hate it so much, you seem to know a whole lot about it.

is that so wrong to now about it, i buy car magazines and if i see an article about the veyron i will read it. The sales figures were from a "car" magazine, the supercar edition!...it helps to now about a car that your guna slate!

Cockrocket, I'm curious as to where you've gotten your info on the Veyron, particularly about it spinning in a straight line at speed and the sales figures... For someone who claims to hate it so much, you seem to know a whole lot about it.

Ahhhh... what's this... A yellow flag and a cloud of dust - there must be trouble!! :eek:

http://www.fast-autos.net/gallery/albums/album60/1644_G.sized.jpg


Wait, I can see it now...

http://www.fast-autos.net/gallery/albums/album60/1645_G.sized.jpg


Why, it's a Veyron...

http://www.fast-autos.net/gallery/albums/album60/1646_G.sized.jpg

...spinning off the track at Laguna Seca as it came down the front straight at the Historic Races while on a parade lap. :lol:

Kirium - the Veyron has problems, the least of which is the driver in those photographs. Many of those problems have been documented, but seeing as how I have very little respect for the car and am not the least bit interested in it, I don't have any other handy resources to share with you. Suffice to say, they did show the design before they tested the aerodynamics and they have revised the design to include that large rear wing as that's the only way the car will ever stay on the road at speed. It was a stupid mistake on their part. They have also revised the top speed, stating that the car would be capable of the originally quoted 250mph, but only when fitted with special tires and a limiter is removed from the car.

There's more to the stories - as well as cooling problems with the engine as I recall, but again, I would never claim to be an expert on this beast as I simply don't care. I find the car rather laughable and I don't believe it's in the same league as the F1, regardless of its intended market, price, power figure or any other stat one might find similar.

The fact that the original concept was shown all the way back in the year 2000 as the 18/4 Veyron, and has been revised more than 3 times really shows that they don't have their acts together. McLaren began internal discussion about the F1 in mid 1988, had a final concept they showed to the public in early 1992, and had rolled the first real prototype out of the factory at the end of 1992. Less than a year later they were building production cars. In comparison, I find it pretty sad what VW has managed to do with Bugatti so far.

By the way - I was a fan of the EB110 when it was released, although I never felt the styling was very "Bugatti". This new design for the Veyron is even worse IMO.

>8^)
ER

I'll quickly clarify with you all that i am NOT repeat not pro-Veyron...

I think it's a flawed car in it's concept aswell, and it wouldn't make my top 10 cars to buy if I had the spare change floating around. not by long shot.

I never intended to make this discussion about the Veyron, I don't really care about it either, but Gordon Murray sure does, he brought it up first.. ;) I don't agree with Gordon on the basis that he thinks any and every supercar has to be built by his way of thinking, and if it's not, he immediately discredits and slams it. As i've said many times in this thread, just because it's not the way he'd do it, doesn't warrant such aggressive bagging of cars that have the potential to better the F1 in some areas (and I'm mainly talking about the Koenigsegg CCR here, because it's got far more potential than the Veyron). It seems hugely childish IMHO. Like I said, I'm very interested in the response letter from Christian Koenigsegg. Someone please scan it :) Glad everyones opinions of the Veyron are their own, and not just taking what Gordon says as gospel...

With all due respect, Gordon has every right to bring up the car as it is continuously being compared to the F1 simply based on it's price and the fact that its top speed might eclipse the figure set by the McLaren F1. It may not have been mentioned by that particular interviewer, but it's consistently compared in the press and other mediums just because some of the stats are similar.

If someone intends to make a true competitor to the F1, then they do need to follow his philosphy, and they need to do it better, using the newer technology and design abilities that are available today. As Gordon stated, so far the only car to come really close was the Zonda. The Koenigsegg and others are disqualified because of their forced induction methods of power making. Cars like the Enzo are out because of their lack of civilty and usability as a road car.

The F1 really fits a very small niche of the supercar world when you look at the details.

Also, anyone who chooses is allowed to like the Veyron. Everyone has different things that appeal to them and that's what makes the world better. Liking the Veyron doesn't make someone a bad person, even here in the F1 forum. I only clarified the points that Cockrocket (lol @ that name again) had made that you were questioning because it seemed you didn't believe him.

>8^)
ER

im with you 100% their. Gordon has created a car which despite being 10 years old is still be compared to the most modern hyper cars. I no other car even the F40 has acheived that. If a car is to beat the Maca as the best supercar then it must follow the same rules as it. Strapping 4 turbos to a VW beetle is not the way!

what about the Porsche GT?....i dont particularly like it but i supose it does follow gordons philosophy but it doesnt compare the F1.

I guess the Carrera GT is a good fit, but it does lack the luggage space provided by the F1 and Zonda, which give them both a level of usability beyond most other supercars.

In the end, I think being able to let two friends at a time experience how great the F1 really is, will be what truly sets it apart from the rest. I don't foresee anyone else building a car with that configuration anytime soon. Additionally, the center seating position for the driver is continuously praised by nearly everyone who has driven the car. A little hard to get into, but once you are there its apparently perfect.

>8^)
ER

The Koenigsegg and others are disqualified because of their forced induction methods of power making.

Disqualified from what?? being a "real" supercar??

So (hypothetically) if the Koenigsegg CCR were to post a higher top speed, a quicker 0-200kph, brake in a shorter distance, corner more effictively, lap a race track quicker and carry a fraction more luggage, it still wouldn't count as being a "real" supercar like the F1 because it uses supercharging?? Come on... :screwy: It sounds like you're suggesting that the only car that will ever equal or better the F1 as a supercar has to be a modernised clone of the F1.

Hey, don't look at me, GM was the one who said you almost can't count them. :iceslolan

In hs defense, I agree that the drawbacks of forced induction do not allow for a pure experience. Forced induction can certainly put a smile on your face, but it's not an ideal way to make additional power when compared to good old fashioned normally aspirated grunt.

It doesn't mean they aren't Supercars - the EB110, 959, F40, 288 GTO, XJ220 and a few others have all used turbocharging, whereas the SLR and Koenigsegg both use a supercharger - and all of those are certainly Supercars.

Tell me though, when was the last time Ferrari or Lamborghini used forced induction on any of their supercars? The F40 and 288 GTO are the two I recall from Ferrari and both are said to be a handful in trying to control when the power kicks in. That's not a pure experience.

>8^)
ER

If a car is to beat the Maca as the best supercar then it must follow the same rules as it.

Can't agree with you there...

Lets take the Ferrari F40, widely considered to be one of the best supercars back in the late 80's and early 90's. Are we forgetting that it was turbocharged? Going by your logic, if a car maker wanted to make a better supercar, it had follow the same rules as the benchmark of the time. Did McLaren do that?? not a bit, they looked outside the box and developed new concepts to create a better supercar, quite a different beast to the F40. So why does a better supercar now have to follow the same mould as the F1? If people had thought that back in the late 80's, the F1 would be just another supercar in the crowd. but it's not. why? because McLaren didn't just replicate the benchmark at the time with a bit of newer technology, they looked for better methods outside the norm.

But McLaren proved that forced induction was not required. You just need a company that knows how to build a good engine to design one with better specs. Even Ferrari abandoned turbocharging on it's supercars after the F40. Surely they must realize it's not ideal as well.

>8^)
ER

So a car must provide a pure driving experience (thru the use of a NA engine) to be a "true" supercar?

That would mean a Lotus 7 from the 60's could be considered as a supercar. It provides a very pure driving experience.

Ferrari Enzo:
0-30mph: 1.79mph
0-60mph: 3.52secs
0-100mph: 6.69secs
Reaction time: 0.21secs
100-0mph: 4.08secs
Overall: 10.98secs

Caterham R500 Evolution:
0-30mph: 1.45mph
0-60mph: 3.21secs
0-100mph: 6.92secs
Reaction time: 0.21secs
100-0mph: 3.60secs
Overall: 10.73secs <--------------- BONKERS!!!

The Caterham is a quicker car than the Enzo from 0-100-0. But it's not really considered a supercar either... perhaps because the cost of entry isn't high enough...

So what makes a supercar a supercar??

Believe me, I'm all for NA engines. I drive an LS1 powered Holden. good, fun, NA V8... :D And i've got my eyes on a 1999 M3 and my dream car is the new E60 M5. Just because I believe NA is the best way to power a great car (and no-one does this better than BMW) doesn't mean it has to be the only way, and everything else is crap, which is what Gordon is saying...

Does anyone else agree?

http://img21.exs.cx/img21/986/VeyronEquation.jpg

Does anyone else agree?

http://img21.exs.cx/img21/986/VeyronEquation.jpg :lol:
Thats the perfect Veyron equation ,no doubt about it.

So a car must provide a pure driving experience (thru the use of a NA engine) to be a "true" supercar?

If you are asking me - No, that's not really what I said at all.

That would mean a Lotus 7 from the 60's could be considered as a supercar. It provides a very pure driving experience.

Ferrari Enzo: <specs removed>

Caterham R500 Evolution: <specs removed>

The Caterham is a quicker car than the Enzo from 0-100-0. But it's not really considered a supercar either... perhaps because the cost of entry isn't high enough...

So what makes a supercar a supercar??

There are lots of factors that either include or disqualify a car from 'supercar' status. Not all are easy to clarify, but generally speaking its a combination of high performance, high prestige, and high price.

>8^)
ER

Believe me, I'm all for NA engines. I drive an LS1 powered Holden. good, fun, NA V8... :D And i've got my eyes on a 1999 M3 and my dream car is the new E60 M5. Just because I believe NA is the best way to power a great car (and no-one does this better than BMW) doesn't mean it has to be the only way, and everything else is crap, which is what Gordon is saying...

See, now in my opinion, you're just reading too far into Gordon's comments and trying to give it a meaning that was not intended.

To me it seems he is saying that F/I just doesn't provide a pure driving experience, not that the technology is crap. Obviously he wouldn't have thought it was crap through the years of Formula One engines that utilized it.

>8^)
ER

...The F40 and 288 GTO are the two I recall from Ferrari and both are said to be a handful in trying to control when the power kicks in. That's not a pure experience.

>8^)
ER

Tire techonology has progressed at a magnificent pace since the release of the 288 GTO & F40. They are both hampered by substandard--especially by today's standards--OE tires.

Greg A

Going by your logic, if a car maker wanted to make a better supercar, it had follow the same rules as the benchmark of the time. Did McLaren do that??

Your missing the point. Mclaren "looked outside the box" because their is a better option than forced induction?...no point copying the F40 when at that time their were better options. If a manufacture creates a differeent engine other than naturaly aspirated and forced induction and puts it into a completely different but better chassis than the F1, then fair enough the F1 would loose its place. Are you argueing that a w12, quad turbo is better than a NA V12?...i hope not. Back to the W12, Quad turbo, does bugatti employ amateur engine designers?...i mean a W12 on its own is big, but with 4 fans to help!!...i mean a Nissan Skyline can dishout 1000bhp with just 2 turbos and its an inline 4 i think (inline something anyway)..Same goes for the koenigsegg, becuase the cc8s cudnt beat the maca f1 then went back and gave it more power. Simply to beat the F1, stupid....supercars should not be common!...wacking turbos on v8 etc is common. Createing a v12 that creates 600+bhp shows engineering brilliance!

PS..Malka..lovly link!... :grinno:

Kirium, your points of view are great and I have to say this is one of the best discussions on these cars that I have read. Often times these can get ridiculous but this has gone on for (phew!) 4 pages and it's still a mature discussion.

On to Murray's interview... I think I would react the same way if the person conducting the interview tossed out bonehead questions like those. It seems like this John Barker guy prepared for his interview by looking up "McLaren F1" on his closest bulletin board. He got it all wrong! I don't blame GM for being short with the guy. He's been answering the same questions over and over again since Ferrari released the F50 in 1995(?). I especially love GM's answer to the 5th question about embracing superchargers.

As for this debate about what the best supercar is, GM has one vision of what a sportscar/supercar should NOT be. And the F1 is thus far the best example of that vision. No one has to agree to it or accept it as the end-all-be-all of supercar design and engineering. But he has found enough like-minded people to sell 64 examples of his version of "the best supercar". And from reading that interview I don't get the impression that he is worried about another car(s) knocking the F1 off the top of the supercar pedestal. He said it best: "We’ve had our 10 year reign, take the crown."

I have to disagree with you on the F1 vs Veyron debate. I think they are very much alike. I think the F1 road car was designed to be just as much of a autobahn cruiser as the Veyron (comfy seats, quiet operation, luggage space, CD changer, good A/C). But the execution is quite different. You've noted the interior on the Veyron. The F1 has a full leather and carpet interior too. But the F1 catered to a more sporting clientele than the Veyron will.

I guess to sum up my point, any supercar will have an enormous task of creating, developing, selling, and supporting a car that will better the F1 in all categories (fun, driveability, speed, reliability, comfort, design, build quality, etc). In my humble opinion, it's going to have to be a manufacturer with deep pockets and a strong belief in the seeing the project through to the end. Ferrari certainly could; Porsche could; maybe BMW if they had the interest.

Drew

P.S. -- thinking of all of this really put it into perspective for me that McLaren built only 64 road cars... Such a tiny amount for a fairly long production run. This is one instance where I think I would rather have had more road cars than racecars.

Personally I reckon the difference between the F1 and Veyron can be summed up like this:

GM set out to create the ultimate sportscar whereas Bugatti plan to create the ultimate supercar.

The debating about what constitutes a supercar on here is kind of ironic since GM has never used the word when describing the F1. He hated the word for all the negative associations with it.

A sportscar according to GM should be light in mass and controls, have a bit of roll to let you feel what the car is doing in corners and have a generous and responsive engine. It should be packaged well and have racecar DNA without being a roadgoing version of one.

A supercar on the other hand must be ludicrously powerful, tremendously exclusive (by being incredibly difficult to get hold of and be extraordinarily expensive once you have) and so exotically beautiful that it snaps knicker elastic at 100 paces.

Of course sportscars are ordinarily designed to a cost. The F1 shows what can happen if you don't...

See, now in my opinion, you're just reading too far into Gordon's comments and trying to give it a meaning that was not intended.

To me it seems he is saying that F/I just doesn't provide a pure driving experience, not that the technology is crap. Obviously he wouldn't have thought it was crap through the years of Formula One engines that utilized it.

>8^)
ER

I don't think I'm reading too far into GM's comments... perhaps just over-simplifying them... :D

GM attacks the K'segg really for no reason... He says you almost can't count cars like that. I'm not sure why, but he expresses his disapproval for supercharging, which the CC8S and CCR use, so perhaps that's the reason. But that seems a bit hipocritical since the SLR is supercharged and AMG uses bi-turbos. I can understand his resentment toward the Veyron, simply on it's concept, but still don't think it's warranted...

His disregard for the CC is even less warranted. It's a well rounded sports car, that according to some articles (EVO) is one of the best on earth, but doesn't have a NA V10 or V12. That doesn't make it a car you can't count. It has had a very long gestation period, but that only allows their test drivers (ex-racer Rickard Rydell?) to hone the car so it is as good as it can be. It's acknowledged by EVO and TopGear as the most serious threat to the F1 now.
Perhaps GM would have a different opinion of it now, or at least take it more seriously now that it's being tested and driven and people are wanting to buy it (I heard it found 1 buyer here in Australia when shown at the Australian Motor Show in Sydney last month). that interview is about 2 years old now, and the Keonigsegg has come quite a long way.

Kirium, your points of view are great and I have to say this is one of the best discussions on these cars that I have read. Often times these can get ridiculous but this has gone on for (phew!) 4 pages and it's still a mature discussion.

I have to say that I expected many more irrational comments and a more hostile reception to my opinions than have been put forward by others here, and it's such a refreshing change to most auto forums I frequent, even tho we've gone around in circles a couple of times. Most have responded with well-rounded and well researched responses based on honest opinions.

It seems like this John Barker guy prepared for his interview by looking up "McLaren F1" on his closest bulletin board. He got it all wrong! I don't blame GM for being short with the guy. He's been answering the same questions over and over again since Ferrari released the F50 in 1995(?).

I'd give John Barker a bit more credit than that. He's the motoring editor of one of the more respected performance car magazines around, and one which focuses on the thrill of driving. EVO has quite a record of holding and promoting track days often in association with Caterham, Lotus and other brands under their EVOactive program. Their writers appear to be car enthusiasts who happen to write about cars as opposed to writers who just write about cars. I can't say I have anywhere near the same level of respect for Australia's local performance car mag MOTOR. Like I said, i'd give him a bit more credit. (But not too much, he's still a journo... up there with lawyers... ;) )

As for this debate about what the best supercar is, GM has one vision of what a sportscar/supercar should NOT be. And the F1 is thus far the best example of that vision. No one has to agree to it or accept it as the end-all-be-all of supercar design and engineering.


By stating what a sportscar/supercar should not be, he almost eliminates and discredits anything that doesn't fit his criteria which he built the F1 by though, thus leaving us with what a sportscar/supercar should be, and this is his formula, and anything else doesn't really count. That's essentially what doesn't sit right with me about his comments. He's essentially defined how such a car should and shouldn't be built. If someone had told him how a supercar should and shouldn't be built back in the late 80's, he would have rejected them instantly. He looked to alternatives and succeeded with it. now he's telling people that his formula is the best way, and the next supercar can only beat the F1 is they merely advance those principles, and now he's bagging alternative thinking in the area of making power. Some people might consider that a bit hipocritical also..

I don't get the impression that he is worried about another car(s) knocking the F1 off the top of the supercar pedestal. He said it best: "We’ve had our 10 year reign, take the crown."

If it were a car that were in line with his concept of what makes a pure drivers car (everything he put into the F1), I agree, I'm sure he'd be accepting of that. However, if the K'segg CCR were to topple it, I think he'd be quite displeased and unaccepting, mainly due to it's forced induction, which doesn't fit his concept of a supercar.

I guess to sum up my point, any supercar will have an enormous task of creating, developing, selling, and supporting a car that will better the F1 in all categories (fun, driveability, speed, reliability, comfort, design, build quality, etc). In my humble opinion, it's going to have to be a manufacturer with deep pockets and a strong belief in the seeing the project through to the end. Ferrari certainly could; Porsche could; maybe BMW if they had the interest.


Ferrari certainly could, if they weren't so obsessed with creating a car which tries a bit too hard to make the link of Formula 1 to road car, like the F50 and Enzo are, IMHO. Porsche I think have tried their best with the C-GT, and fallen a bit short. I'm not sure they can come up with a better engine than racing derived one they've got in that car. Despite how much I'd love to see a BMW supercar (Does anyone remember the Nazca C2 and M12? http://images.google.com.au/images?q=bmw%20nazca&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi) I don't think the Quandt family have the commitment to create a car along the same uncompromised theory as the F1. :( We know they can certainly create the worlds best engines, but to create an entirely new, uncompromised sportscar/supercar in the F1 mould is far too much risk for such a global company... Having said that, Chrysler are having a shot at it with the ME Four-Twelve... http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=8&article_id=1167Perhaps BMW will one day too... We can only hope... :D

Maybe it's just me and what will probably be considered as my blasphemous views but i dont think GM wrote the definition of "supercar." IMO the F1 is still one of the top supercars but i dont think it will be long before tests prove it to no longer be #1. He says supercharging is better than turbocharging? Why is that? Is weight the factor because it cant be the efficiency of the system. As for saying that a NA motor is more efficient than a turbo motor (maybe i was reading that wrong), that is completly false. Turbocharged engines regularly can produce over 100% efficiency if setup right. As for driving experience, a turbo car that is setup correctly wont just put a smile on your face or have serious "lag" but it will be a smooth transition into higher power with boost. I like the F1 and i respect GM for producing a car that has held it's reign as the #1 supercar for over 10 years but i think it's days are numbered. It will however be remembered forever as a milestone to performance and functionality. Lets hope the next reigning champion has the same success.

William

Maybe it's just me and what will probably be considered as my blasphemous views but i dont think GM wrote the definition of "supercar." Neither did he to be fair - he hates the word.
As for saying that a NA motor is more efficient than a turbo motor (maybe i was reading that wrong), that is completly false. Turbocharged engines regularly can produce over 100% efficiency if setup right.That's just plain wrong - basic laws of thermodynamics state that you cannot have greater than 100% efficiency.

As for driving experience, a turbo car that is setup correctly wont just put a smile on your face or have serious "lag" but it will be a smooth transition into higher power with boost.But a well tuned NA engine won't have any transitionary stage in the rev range.