Febuary issue EVO Mag " Murray meets Pagani

Hi Guys, I am new here, so go easy on me. Purchased Feb issue of evo mag, article by the man himself, giving his view on the pagani zonda. Very interesting read.(sorry scanner not hooked up at present).Double page sketches by Gordon, with detailed comments about various aspects of the cars design. Interesting shot on page 103 Gordon studying under side of zonda for areo set up. Or he has fallen asleep!!.

Excellent, can't wait to see it. Somebody scan it in, as it is not on the US newsstands yet (so far as I know). Thanks for the info. What was Gordon's take on the Zonda? He said it was a pointless car when tvrfreak asked him. Has he changed his mind?

In reply to your question F1 Monster, Quote by Gordon Murray from article in EVO mag.


The Zonda F is a true supercar, well engineered and well built enough to lift itself above all the other sports cars being produced by small companies. A very good powertrain, well resolved dynamics and exellent progressive brakes all add up to a great drive.


After driving the car for the first time, May have changed his mind?

Excellent, can't wait to see it. Somebody scan it in, as it is not on the US newsstands yet (so far as I know). Thanks for the info. What was Gordon's take on the Zonda? He said it was a pointless car when tvrfreak asked him. Has he changed his mind?

I think you are mistaken. GM has always admired Pagani. He called the Veyron (and edonis/koenisegg) pointless.

^ That was my take. I thought he said he had the most respect for the Zonda

well the zonda is far closer the mclaren than any other car, except with the ridiculous styling. But light weight, NA, etc.

I think you are mistaken. GM has always admired Pagani. He called the Veyron (and edonis/koenisegg) pointless.
I believe he has a new found respect for the veyron these days, since he has driven it recently.

see article below.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=7&article_id=3075

I think you are mistaken. GM has always admired Pagani. He called the Veyron (and edonis/koenisegg) pointless.


I don't think it's wise of GM to criticize so many supercars in that arrogant tone. Yes he is a genius when it comes to supercars, but there are a few other people in the world that are able to make a decent car as well.
He sometimes speaks like he was the supreme super car police who has all the right answers! Remember there are a lot of brilliant minds out there who would be able to accomplish just the same as GM if they had the limitless budget GM had to work with on the McLaren!

And what is pointless about a supercar??? The mere idea of a supercar itself are pointless as these cars has no practical function at all, they’re all about fun and excitement, people area allowed to go a little crazy in this world I think. The CCR has threatened or beaten the McLaren on several specs. for a car that cost half it has overall 98% of the performance a McLaren has! Why is that pointless??

The Pagani article...

http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954470csmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954470c.jpg) http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954470dsmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954470d.jpg)

http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954472csmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954472c.jpg) http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954472dsmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954472d.jpg)

http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954475csmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954475c.jpg) http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954475dsmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954475d.jpg)

http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954477csmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954477c.jpg) http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954477dsmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954477d.jpg)

http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954478csmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954478c.jpg) http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954478dsmall.jpg (http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1954478d.jpg)

>8^)
ER

He sometimes speaks like he was the supreme super car police who has all the right answers! Remember there are a lot of brilliant minds out there who would be able to accomplish just the same as GM if they had the limitless budget GM had to work with on the McLaren!



I think Murray doesnt walk himself to look up to simular level of supercar but some authorities of mags hope to make certain difference among other supercars. It prove that he is the right man who can judge what most ulitimate one has to be and since such a technology of having been applied to supercar has already been considered by GM a decade ago and fulfilled his dream closer to perfect, he is qualified to throw his opinion what pointless supercar has not to be.

I think you are mistaken. GM has always admired Pagani. He called the Veyron (and edonis/koenisegg) pointless.
No, he has said the same thing about ALL of these types of cars, from the Enzo to the Pagani to the Koenigsegg and the Carrera GT. One may be slightly better than the rest in some respects, but they all lack the focus on overall packaging, according to GM. It's good to see he's coming around in his opinions somewhat, and I don't necessarily agree with him about it, but he did include the Pagani in his list of "pointless" cars.

Thankyou for scanning and posting the article Peloton. (you beat me to it).

Talking of pointless supercars, The McLaren F1 must be near the top of
list!! Its to expensive to buy and run. And thus the experience cannot be shared by the majority of people. Only the extremely wealthy An extremely clever engineer is the one ,who can pakage all the principles of the F1 at a price the majority of people can afford.

Saying this though, I do admire Gordons work. And I am a big fan of the F1.

Unless he got a scanner for Christmas and the issue hit us in the US amazingly quick, Erik didn't scan it.

Thanks for posting it though, it was a good read. I love how he still "plugs" the F1 all these years later.

I think it's rather safe to assume he wouldn't be writing these articles if not to make the comparisons to the F1, meaning that's what the magazines are looking for.

It's also safe to assume I still have no scanner. :grinno:

= = = = = =

Anyone else disappointed that Murray didn't pull XP3 out of the garage for some side-by-side photos with the Zonda F?

>8^)
ER

Anyone else disappointed that Murray didn't pull XP3 out of the garage for some side-by-side photos with the Zonda F?


Yes

I like the fact that Gordon's garage actually looks like more like a garage rather than a display case of cars that are never actually driven. All go, no show! I wish there were more pics of his other cars though, I would love to see his Rocket!

On the pages with the drawing and annotations, it is clear that GM is trying hard to tone down numerous criticisms. To me, they all seem to be valid, except for mentioning where the F1's luggage area is--how is that relevant? Even that could be considered relevant if he is trying to imply that the Zonda has no storage.

I wonder what he means by "clever use of standard headlamps?" What's clever about it? Anyone know?

On the pages with the drawing and annotations, it is clear that GM is trying hard to tone down numerous criticisms. To me, they all seem to be valid, except for mentioning where the F1's luggage area is--how is that relevant? Even that could be considered relevant if he is trying to imply that the Zonda has no storage.

Actually the Zonda does have storage in the same location - I think he is simply pointing out the similarity, not making any kind of criticism. See this photo:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/temp/2005-Pagani-Zonda-F-n-Engine-Layout.jpg

I wonder what he means by "clever use of standard headlamps?" What's clever about it? Anyone know?

I believe he is suggesting that it is clever use of an off the shelf component housed in a unique design to make them appear as custom pieces.

>8^)
ER

Talking of standard of the shelf components. What car uses Ford Escort number plate lights, Vauxhall Astra side repeaters, Audi 80 boot lid locks,VW Corardo wing mirrors, Lotus Elan front indicators/side lights and Diahatsu door catches/striker pins. Off the shelf Hella and Cibie headlamps.The list goes on, even the GTR uses Ford Transit air vents on its dash board. As Gordon mentions in his article, "Its a skill totally unknown to major manufacturers who waste millions on tooling costs for each new model". The F1 is no lesser car by having the listed components integrated within its design detailing.

Please feel free to add more standard components to the list above, I shall add more, when my memory kicks in.


PS. Peloton did you receive my email, Please reply.

Don't forget the signal and wiper stalks are sourced from BMW - I believe the 7-Series, though they may have appeared on other models. I think the window switches are also BMW parts and that the mirror control switch was sourced from VW. Makes sense to use off the shelf parts whenever possible as long as they don't compromise the look and feel too much.

PS. Peloton did you receive my email, Please reply.

I probably do have your email, but can't access my account from the computer I am on. I will check for it when I get home.

>8^)
ER

Yes the column stalks are BMW, I have them on my 850. The rear seat belts are similar to the F1 (made by Starhl in Germany) The bonnet and engine cover latches are BMW 3 series? also degas tank cap BMW. The last component looks neat on the bespoke degas tank. Also the fuel filler cap is off the shelf item by newton equipement with detail mods.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by F1 monster
I wonder what he means by "clever use of standard headlamps?" What's clever about it? Anyone know?
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe he is suggesting that it is clever use of an off the shelf component housed in a unique design to make them appear as custom pieces.

>8^)
ER

exactaly. off the shelf lights make the car appear more.."road going" than some exotic 30million watt hids. makes you think that the car is more practical than exotic. your lighting the road ahead of you, not the road for everyone else...

I think Murray doesnt walk himself to look up to simular level of supercar but some authorities of mags hope to make certain difference among other supercars. It prove that he is the right man who can judge what most ulitimate one has to be and since such a technology of having been applied to supercar has already been considered by GM a decade ago and fulfilled his dream closer to perfect, he is qualified to throw his opinion what pointless supercar has not to be.


What people seem to forget is that GM had a limitless budget and all the time in the world in furfilling his dream, yes the man is a genious, and yeah he definetely knows how to make a proper supercar!
Dosent anyone think there is a lot of smart guys who would make something similar under these circumstances? Look what they managed with the Veyron! A hopeless project in reality, now it's not half bad at all!
What I mean by his arrogance is that he is often quoted and he seems very full of himself and clearly looks down on many other fantastic veichles. My point was the Koenigsegg, which btw costs 1/3 of a McLaren and still matches it's performance, that seems to be a good alternative to me!? And calling the Enzo pointless????? What's pointless about it, the Enzo is a state of the art supercar, the Ultimate road Ferrari, what's so much more pointless about that one compared to the McLaren. Yes, I know the McLaren had cutting edge technology blablabla, but so does he Enzo, and what it lacks in tech. specs. it takes back in heritage. If every car ever made had to be a reflection of the best there is to offer, we would sit back with 15-20 car models in the world and just had to scrap the rest of them. To me GM seem to go in the same trap as many designers/engineers do, they only praise work that share their fundamental thought and everyone else who thinks differently must be an idiot.
And don't misunderstand, I admire GM and what he's accomplished, I just don't think the man is a perfect beeing like some seem too think.
And I have actually met GM, even if it was brief, I was lucky enough to get his autograph and a personal greeting in my "Driving ambition".

Man, why do you carry on about this? Who cares? We all like GM. We all know he is human. We all agree with him about some things and disagree with him on others. He has a lot of credibility, so we listen when he speaks. And usually, we learn a lot too. At least, I do. GM makes his points in a nice, humorous, educational manner.

We are not mindless idiots who can't think for ourselves.

Why do you continually harp on this point as if you have some great insight that the rest of us don't?

I could debate you on each of the points you raised about the Koenigsegg and the Enzo, etc. But really, I have better things to do than argue on the internet. Is there a Koenigsegg forum here? Ferrari? I think you will have good audiences there.

At the end of the day, we like GM and learn a lot from him when he speaks and shares his thoughts, knowledge, passion, and insights with us.

Talking of standard of the shelf components. What car uses Ford Escort number plate lights, Vauxhall Astra side repeaters, Audi 80 boot lid locks,VW Corardo wing mirrors, Lotus Elan front indicators/side lights and Diahatsu door catches/striker pins. Off the shelf Hella and Cibie headlamps.The list goes on, even the GTR uses Ford Transit air vents on its dash board. As Gordon mentions in his article, "Its a skill totally unknown to major manufacturers who waste millions on tooling costs for each new model". The F1 is no lesser car by having the listed components integrated within its design detailing.

Please feel free to add more standard components to the list above, I shall add more, when my memory kicks in.



While the indicators were on a Lotus Elan, they came from another car, but I can't remember which. I seem to think it was Japanese.

Only other thing that isn't listed are Bova Coach rear lights (both F1 and GTR with the lightweight variety) and Citroen AX/Peugeot 106 courtsey lights. As I think everyone knows, the prototype wore Citroen CX mirrors and a few (3) have BMW Z-1 mirrors.

Man, why do you carry on about this? Who cares? We all like GM. We all know he is human. We all agree with him about some things and disagree with him on others. He has a lot of credibility, so we listen when he speaks. And usually, we learn a lot too. At least, I do. GM makes his points in a nice, humorous, educational manner.

We are not mindless idiots who can't think for ourselves.

Why do you continually harp on this point as if you have some great insight that the rest of us don't?

I could debate you on each of the points you raised about the Koenigsegg and the Enzo, etc. But really, I have better things to do than argue on the internet. Is there a Koenigsegg forum here? Ferrari? I think you will have good audiences there.

At the end of the day, we like GM and learn a lot from him when he speaks and shares his thoughts, knowledge, passion, and insights with us.


:p hehe...I see I at least got your attencion monster :p
Maybe youre right, enough is enough, I am a little whiny about this :iceslolan

Since english is not my native tounge, I probably could express my opinions a little better and take some time to reply in a better way so I'm not misunderstood. It was never my intention to make it seem like youre half brains. Mostly people here have a high knowledge.

I could probably try to explain why I'm occupied with these GM comments, but it's no point really, as theyre not that relevant for this tread anyway. And I never said I have better insight than others, not once, it's just my way of expressing myself. And I though someone in this forum had read many of the same GM statements I've read. Then they would maybe agree on some points.

And why are you talking about arguments over the internet? :eek7:
I'm dicussing, not arguing with anyone!? :rolleyes:

Nah :smile:

OK, point taken. Nobody's English is perfect, and it's easy to read things the wrong way. :)

Let's talk about the really important stuff...when is GM going to do an eval of the Koenigsegg. I think he would say entirely different things about them now. And I would be very interested to read his "analysis" of the car's design like he did with the Pagani. I think he would have less comments about its shortcomings.

Another thing I wish he would write about is how he would build a McLaren with today's technology and materials and advancements. Of course, since he is considering a smaller sportscar, he may not be able to reveal details, but I would very much like to hear the technologies he agrees with and doesn't agree with.

For instance, I know he does not like paddle-shifters.

What about carbon brakes? If they provide the feel and feedback that he is always focused on, I think he would use them.

What about overall design? The McLaren is a bit bland unless in LM/GTR form. What would he do differently. What about absolutely minimal cars like Lotus 340R and Ariel Atom. He is obsessed with weight reduction. At what point does it become too extreme and limited in practicality?

I would love to hear his opinion on these and a million other points!

What would you ask about?

What about overall design? The McLaren is a bit bland unless in LM/GTR form.One could argue that an outrageous design is a design for the moment, but a more classy design becomes timeless. I wonder if 40 years from now people will look at the Countach, Zonda, and Enzo, and think "yes, that has timeless styling," and then say "The F1 looks stale and outdated." The F1 is a clean shape. It doesn't have ridiculous airfoils or hideous chin splitters and holes that make it look like miracle food slicer with wheels. Sorry to say, but I think that three of the above cars are ugly, and one of them isn't.

I think these test could be a bit self-serving given Gordon's plans to produce a new supercar. You'll recall prior to building the F1 he spent time evaluating the current crop of supercars and also drove many classic performance cars that were considered to be great. If he truly is out to produce another winner - what better way could their be to research the competition?

>8^)
ER

One could argue that an outrageous design is a design for the moment, but a more classy design becomes timeless. I wonder if 40 years from now people will look at the Countach, Zonda, and Enzo, and think "yes, that has timeless styling," and then say "The F1 looks stale and outdated." The F1 is a clean shape. It doesn't have ridiculous airfoils or hideous chin splitters and holes that make it look like miracle food slicer with wheels. Sorry to say, but I think that three of the above cars are ugly, and one of them isn't.

Yes, agreed that the McLaren F1 is not ugly. But instead of exciting, the shape is merely non-offending. There are no strong design themes in it, except perhaps in a few small areas. Is it possible to have exciting and timeless design together in the same package? We cannot predict fads and what is going to be in vogue down the line, but apart from using accepted non-controversial design elements and avoiding obvious mistakes or pandering to fads, can a design have lasting appealing and still be somewhat exciting?

Face it, the McLare is not ugly, but it is bland in roadcar form. The high mirrors were fabulous, but they got removed.

Lambo Miura and Ferrari 250 SWB seem timeless to me. Also Mercedes 190, and most things about the Lotus Elise Mk 1. For what it is, the Lexus LS400 sedan is also good, but bland. Now look at the earlier Mercedes sedans. They may have been overtaken in looks, but an old big Mercedes convertible is still a presence on the road. Agree?

I think McLaren could have been a tad bit more daring in design. Somewhere between the GTR and the roadcar...

Interestingly, isn't it amazing how quickly Japanese cars look dated? I think they partially bring it upon themselves with the constant change. Some of their cars are so hideous that you are thankful they change so quickly.

Now consider American cars. They just look awful for the most part. At least they are consistent...I guess. But, the Jeep is timeless. The Cherokee, Wrangler, and Commander are all great in terms of design. Even the Jeep concepts such as the Jeepster are good IMO. Toyota, Mercedes, Lambo, all of them tried to make Jeeps, and failed to do anything but make weak looking copies of the basic body style. The European versions such as the LM002 and Range Rover are different, but not as successful (IMO) in terms of establishing design precedents. Recent Japanese designs are somewhat improved and somewhat refreshingly different, but they are not up to Jeep's rugged, square proportions. Except for the original Landys, I think Jeep defined that design language, and has maintainted the standard ever since.

Agree?

as someone with a vehicle styling background its a problem for any car regardless of price. Generally, if you try and push the boundaries in design, you can often end up with a) a fussy design and b) one that dates very quickly.

While a more classic design is often a more conservative a classic design is always a well resolved clean design... Have a look at any classic design, every line does something, there are no fussy areas or details. Same on the F1. Lots of shutlines and grooves on the side, but they all serve a purpose and/or connect to each other I know one of the criterias for Peter Stevens and GM were a design which didn't really date.

Yeah, but it could have been a bit more exciting. The F1's styling is a little too tame. Look at the Elise...a lot more dynamism on its surfaces. Another problem I have with Peter Stevens is that virtually all of his designs look alike - XJR15, Elise, McLaren F1, what were the others...all of them are the same rounded cockpit, rising out of a flowing mass with rounded front and rears. I realize that aerodynamics dictate a lot, but still, it could have done with some dramatic rises and falls.

It's very neutral, but that makes it very bland as well. The scoop on the roof is fantastic. So is the mini spoiler at the top of the bonnet.

I love car design as well, can't you tell?! :)

he didn't design the Elise

I thought he did the Elise Mk1 ?

Visit his website - it appears he left Lotus prior to the Elise, but did the Elan which may be what you were thinking of.

http://www.peterstevensdesign.co.uk/lotus.htm

>8^)
ER

Wow, no, I know my Lotuses...I was thinking of the Elise Mk 1, and all this time I was sure he had been behind the design. I learnt something today! So, he designed the Esprit revision and the Elan, but not the Elise. I was wrong about that.

Elise Mark1 was Julian Thompson

Letter from Gordon Murray to Horacio Pagani congratulating the latter on his achievements, probably sent after the Zonda F drive detailed in that EVO Magazine article.

http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad83/atmclf1lm/th_DSC_0117_GF.jpg (http://s924.photobucket.com/albums/ad83/atmclf1lm/?action=view&current=DSC_0117_GF.jpg)

If anyone can find that letter that Horacio sent to Gordon on 9th December, I'm sure all of us would like to see it too. Thanks in advance. ;)

That's really cool to see. Thanks for finding that. :thumbsup:

>8^)
ER

:thumbsup: good find Alex