The MP4/4 Debate

Gordon Kimball, in "Motorsport Magazine", September 2015:

"In 1988 I was engineering Gerhard Berger in the F187/88C. That was the year McLaren dominated with Honda and Bernie did all he could to help us. It was the era of turbos and pop-off valves and we had a low-pressure passage that went past the pop-off valve and would pull it open, so we could run more boost. We kept pushing that further and further, waiting to get caught, but we never were. I guess Bernie wanted somebody to try to beat McLaren, so he helped us.
[...]
“Enzo died in August, Monza was the next race and we finished one-two. When they went to measure the fuel capacity the scrutineers checked it four or five times. I don’t know how they did it, but we finally passed the capacity check. Obviously, if they’d disqualified the winning Ferrari at Monza there would have been a riot".

Rgds

 

I don't dislike the guy, but his shirts are beyond awful. Also after watching his latest Challenge Stradale film, where he calls the car overrated...can't help but think he's trying to talk up Scuderia prices (one of which he recently acquired). Maybe just the cynic in me.

 

Sorry for this being in French, but no english page:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_His

His worked on the design of the Renault turbo engines starting in 1984, in the Research and Development center at Viry-Chatillon.
He was offered a job at Ferrari after Renault decided to be only an engine provider at the end of 1985; there, he worked on the development of their Turbo engines, and on the naturally-aspired V12.
But he didn't design the 1988 Renault V-10, as he came back to Renault in July 1988, three months before the engine took the track; the design was already done before his come back.
He came back to Renault-Sport in 2000, to oversee their come-back in Formula One, was the managing director in 2002, but left in 2003 to take a job at Maserati.

Rgds

 

These "witnesses" wrote their letter originally circa 1990 after the Bamsey book was published.

With regards to the gearbox, Nichols states in the interview that Murray suggested (but did not insist) they used Weismann for the gearbox.

Clearly also parts of car were largely carried over from Barnard's previous designs.

The difference seems to me that Murray appears to claim he designed the car almost single-handedly whereas Nichols says he was part of a team that designed the car (and the members of the team agree with his version), the starting point of which was Barnard's very successful designs for the preceding McLarens and not the unsuccessful Brabham BT55.

Either way, it is clear that Murray has an ego the size of a planet and I think it obvious that his version cannot possibly be wholly true. However, that doesn't mean that Nichols' version is wholly true either! What's that quote: Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan.

(Edited to add that I have not read the Bamsey book to see what Murray was saying in 1989).

 

Neither attributed any praise to Barnard, these cars were evolutions.

 

It's obvious that Murray and Nichols cannot understand each other, as they differ in their perception of who did what and which responsibility was theirs.
However, as far as I remember: the main problems with the Brabham BT55 came from the engine, which newer worked correctly once it was inclined on its side (at 72°, if my memory, etc...); oil scavenging problems, mainly, if my memory, etc...conversely, Nichols claims that the 1987 McLaren, the MP4/3, is his work, not Barnard's. Most people at McLaren agree that Murray has showed them drawings of the BT55 and therefore, the concept of the MP4/4 seems really related to the Brabham BT55; to which extent is a matter that will probably never be settled.

Rgds

 

Nichols does in an interview in the book the Perfect Car by Nick Skeens and about John Barnard.

 

Apparently, someone didn’t bother to watch the video in its entirety. Murray threatened Nichols with a lawsuit in order to get him to stop taking credit for MP4/4 as investors in Mclaren were confused. Murray needed to take credit for the work to continue to sell cars.

Nichols knows exactly who contributed to what and so do his co-workers.

 

Hence the signed letter by McLaren employees. The documents alone paint a rather clear picture as to who did what. Murray leveraged his position more than he should have. Now, he is playing CYA to keep his charade going.

 

I would have thought that the job descriptions of the different individuals at McLaren at that time would be a true indication of who was doing what.
That should be easy to verify in the company records.

To me the chief designer supervises and coordinates the team of engineers and technicians that designs a new car: chassis, suspension aerodynamics, brakes, transmission, ancillaries, etc.... Steve Nichols talks about a team of 17 collaborators. The chief designer is usually the one who sign off a new car at the end of the design process.

Above him, the technical manager may oversee the progress of the design, but is not involved on a daily basis. He is involved in the outsourcing of components, engine, gearbox, contacts with the sub-contractors, whilst directing the fabrication side, organising the workshop, and setting the planning for the team. The technical manager is responsible of all aspects of operational equipment during the season,

In Steve Nichols' version, the 2 roles were quite distincts, but if we believe Gordon Murray, they merged when he arrived at McLaren, which already had a fully functioning design team.

 

https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/single-seaters/f1/gordon-murrays-living-in-a-parallel-universe-mclaren-designers-hit-back-over-mp4-4-claims

 

This is the article I was referring to yesterday but omitted to quote when I wrote this:

And, per the article below, though Neil Oatley—the other Chief Designer—signed on to the 1990 letter, he later corroborated Murray’s story confirming the fact that they were indeed shown BT-55 drawings. He also made the error of saying the BT-55 and MP4/4 had pull-rod suspension also at the rear, though this could be a misquote.

 

I’m sure someone at some point were shown BT55 drawings, but how much of that matters?


“None of us were looking at BT55 drawings and we wouldn’t have wanted to be either – it was a disaster,” says Jeffreys. “Why would we want a McLaren to have copied a car that had huge problems and was also two years old?

“If you also look at the MP4/3 [also designed by Nichols] and MP4/4 you can one is a development of the other – the backend is virtually identical.”

“Gordon says ‘Compare the two cars [BT55 and MP4/4] together, you’ll see they’re almost exactly the same,’ adds Nichols. “When you look at those two cars, they’re nothing alike.

“It was the ultimate expression of teamwork” Nichols

“The only similarity is that they were both low. But if you look at anything else – the rules were different [and therefore] the fuel tank size was different, the drivetrain was different, different engine, different gearbox – everything.”

 

placement

It was abundantly clear when Nichols stated that each engineer was assigned certain specfics to the car design. How could Murray know that the gearbox and engine mounting points prior to Porsche/TAG signing on? That only raise the question of a possible design change just to A) Correct placement of the powerplant and its attachment points...B) correct location and placement of gearbox, suspension mounting points and rear wing attachment. All ancillary devices are based upon the former. That alone raises the question seeing that none of this was known 6 months prior. Nichols statement indicates this was a fast moving development in motion scenario. Murray couldn't make those decisions until all elements were in motion. That appears to fall at Steve Nichols and his teams feet based upon the documents presented. One man can not do that much work in that short a period of time.

 

Logically, I would imagine that it was precisely because they were so short on time that Murray’s contributions went beyond his normal role as Technical Director. He brought design solutions that were already tried and tested to what the McLaren guys were designing:

- The new Honda engine’s crank centreline was dropped so the solution devised for the BT-55 for a 3-shaft gearbox fit the bill. I imagine Murray facilitated the arrival of North to adapt the design to the Honda and bring on Weissman and contributed any lessons learned from that problematic car.

- Since the car was striving for a low(er) CG, he also used North to design the suspension geometry—likely with an appropriately lower roll center, like the similarly low CG BT-55–and the transaxle structure and suspension pick-ups.

- Whether decided with Murray or not, the change to front pull-rod design was going to be a novel design at McLaren after years of Barnard-designed rocker arm, then push-rod suspensions. So here’s Murray with a working design of pull-rod (using tracks and rollers, no less) to basically cut and paste onto the MP4/4–what’s not to like?

- Finally, having chosen the lay-down driving position—even if independently from Murray—Murray’s experience with the BT-55 would have been invaluable to avoid the issues the drivers had with that car such as when Patrese had difficultly breathing because basically his chin was on his chest. De Angelis most likely changed from his iconic Simpson helmet probably for the same reason. I would assume the seat back angle was suitably altered.

So it’s not like Murray designed the whole car, or any part of it, the the concept and the defining elements could surely have come from him.

 

There is no question to Murray providing input. The questions were based on his statements above being sole owner of said design. Nichols and associates appear to have placed far more into it. Nichols stated that Murray made recommendations but did not mandate them. Again, all things being equal....this was a team effort (including Murray) and not just one person.

 

I had read that it was Honda who has cleverly manipulating the boost control:

“Turbo boost was theoretically restricted to four bar via popoff valves, but there was a way around this on self-contained V6s like the Honda. They required just one pop-off valve (as opposed to those like the Porsche and Ford which effectively ran as two separate three-cylinder units and so needed two pop-off valves) by overboosting, forcing the pop-off to open and then controlling it against boost. It meant 900bhp in races, 1050bhp in qualifying,” (Mark Hughes, Motorsport Magazine, January 2007, page 92).

Indeed, the general suggestion at the time is that it was Honda, rather than Ferrari, which first identified these loophole(s). Bamsey makes this point in his superb 1990 work, McLaren Honda Turbo - A Technical Appraisal: "By mid-season [1987]...Ferrari is believed to have achieved levels of 4.1/4.2 bar through careful location of the pop off valve, a technique Honda is alleged to have pioneered," (p92).

 

I think Murray is claiming the concept was his and not that he single handily designed the car. Which is logical since, as Technical Director, he didn’t have the responsibility to design or even draw anything of the car.

 

It's Gordon Murray's claim of the full paternity of the MP4/4 which is questionable.

Why did he do that, I wonder. He must have know that version would easily be challenged and debunked.

 

And there is the argument. Based on both the documents and the actions of the engineering staff, it brings into question the true amount of Murray's input. Just because Murray brought foward a concept doesn't mean it either was viable or engineering correct. Those that performed the task seem to understand what was needed and executed accordingly. I will give all of Team McLaren credit for the concept, not just one man. He may have been the TD, but he isn't God.

 

You know things are suspect when ONE person tries to take credit for the whole thing. Especially, a higher-up who might not even be in the trenches getting work done. The signed letter by 17 discouraged members who worked on the car is telling. Not to mention the inaccuracies they pointed out, which means Murray wasn’t there to know the finer details. Not the first time a boss has tried to take credit for his co-workers’ work.

Someone should put the signed letter up here.

 

Agree. I have dealt with similar circumstances in my career. Those eager to climb the corporate ladder are normally of similar behavior to Mr Murray's. It is why I chose to work solo. As a subcontractor you eliminate much of the politics.

 

I guess then we should stop giving credit to the various Neweys, Heads, Barnards and Byrnes, etc. since all their cars were designed by a team of designers.

 

No, but giving credit where credit is due would go along way to build mutual respect and unity within the team. This is why people seek greener pastures. Nichols no doubt weighed this into his decision when he left for Ferrari.

 

Still, I'm still intellectually struggling with the fact that Nichols never designed another good car in its entire career. It's obvious that there was some Barnard's influence in his first Grand Prix car, the 1987 MP4/3, which wasn't a very good car according to Prost (even if it won three races in 1987) and the engine was lacking compared to the Honda. After that, Steve Nichols suddenly, out of the blue, designs the best racing car of all times (or led the team that has done the design etc...), and then, after that: nothing. Not even one other competitive car? That would be unheard of in Formula One: the "One, and One car only, wonder designer". Something doesn't click here for me?

As an aside: what a car, that MP4/4! a proper racing car. Nothing like the "school buses" of today; nimble, small, the essence of simplicity. It reminds me what I liked so much in Formula one at the time, and why I'm not even bothered to follow the races today.

Rgds