Just released and worthy of a thread. A little comical that they don't mention Gordon Murray even once
Related, here is a size comparison of the 1988 car to the 2022 car. Incredible how much smaller they are. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Many thanks for that fantastic video !! My favourite car, from my favourite era, presented by the people who designed it and spannered it.
I was astounded as to the weight they were able to build the car to AND THEN had to ADD over 70KG of ballast! Todays cars are absolute pigs by comparison. I personally liked the 89 car better but that's just me.
Also the bodywork was stripped bare and repainted after each race. 7 kg of paint + all the logos, etc ... I wonder how they would do in today's calendar with some races back to back.
Re-painting bodywork was something Ron Denis started and as the budgets have gotten bigger all teams eventually took on. Nowadays there is such a market for race use collectible parts and the cars evolve so much over the year that most teams just make new parts rather than re-paint old ones
Murray isn't there because Steve Nichols is under the impression that the MP4/4 is 100% his car. It's really amazing how lethargic todays cars are. 70kg of ballast just to make minimum weight! Fine todays cars had better safety but ****, you're not telling me that if cars where similar size today and with the current safety, they'd be a smidge over the minimum weight.
That picture shows everything wrong with current f.1......before we had cheetas for racing, now we have Hippos!
It has to be said but they all profited from the technical excellence of John Barnard prior to his departure who put together some innovative manufacturing processes at McLaren which enabled them to produce such a beautiful piece of machinery. Lets not forget two other major factors that made the MP4/4, the heavily revised Honda engine which outgunned everything on the grid in brute power and moreover fuel consumption. All to often Ferrari had to back off for fear of running out of fuel, if they had a more efficient engine then i am sure the MP4/4 would not have been so successful. Also two of the greatest drivers of the era drove for McLaren .
Adrian Newey fully agree with you ( and rightfully) https://www.grandprix.com/news/f1-sustainability-heading-in-illogical-direction-says-newey.html
Newey is correct, but he is preaching in the desert; most of the decisions have already been taken by governments. Today, for example, Audi announced that they will not produce "thermal" cars beyond 2028, 7 years before the total ban comes. Volvo the same, etc ...
Toyota (like most Japanese carmakers) opted for the hybrid solution to circumvent most of European regulations, mostly for the customers to avoid the carbon "malus" at the time of purchase. But hybrid cars are inefficient and get the worst of both worlds (engine + fuel tank weight, and electric motor + battery weight) and in fact most use thermal power 90% of the time. Once the tax loophole closes hybrids don't make sense, at least in Europe. Toyota, like all carmakers, will have to switch to full EV if they still want to sell cars in Europe beyond 2035.
Toyota will have no choice; this debate is now closed, 27 governments in Europe have decided it's EV from 2035. China is switching to electric as well; it's the biggest market.
When you see all the carmakers investing massively and switching their production to EVs, and at the same time reducing their range of thermal cars to end then by the end of this decade (for many), I cannot foresee a U-turn. The alternatives haven't really made a case for themselves, have they ? Bio and synthetic fuels, hydrogen and so forth; no government has come out to back them up. At most these energies will be a niche market which could cover motorsport, of course. The deadline to ban the ICE, could be extended in some countries because the infrastructure isn't ready, but EVs are inevitable. Your country, France, is literally at war with fossil fuels, and one of the most virulent promoter of EVs. I cannot see them change their mind.
Again the full electric switching is a utopia. They will quickly change their mind when reality will be there.
William, the electrical grid needs a trillion(or more) $$$$ or Euro upgrade to handle every car that runs on electric by whatever year they want to go fully electric.....and that electrical grid runs on coal, nuclear, solar power, or wind in combination. So the ideology is, get the EV first and then we will worry about the electrical grid AFTER the fact. It's ridiculous and idiotic. You will have blackouts IF the electrical grid isn't beefed up to handle the load of recharging your car on top of running everything else. California has blackouts currently and they will stop selling ICE cars by 2035. It's completely bass akwards.
Just watched the Business news channel right now. Coal will hit 8 billion tons by 2023 due to China, India and Indonesia use of coal for coal plants. They showed 3 coal stocks over their 1 year stock price and ALL 3 are above 50% over their 1 year.....that's amazing. Coal is cheapest among the various electrical grid options.
The only thing they can do is delay the ICE sales ban by a few years if the infrastructure isn't ready. Reversing the decisions could be so costly that it would be unworkable, IMO. The policies voted in Europe (I don't know how others will do) are not something that can be revoked: we are talking about treaties here, mutual undertakings from governments, ecologic commitments, etc ... Further more, the major players (Stellantis, VW Group, Renault, Mercedes, etc ...) are fully onboard, and encouraged by tax breaks they are switching already from ICE to EV. Governments are creating financial incentives to decide customers, and at the same time writting legislation to restrict ICE from some cities in Europe from 2030. People can chose to ignore all this, but that would be burying your head in the sand.
