The MP4/4 Debate

I think what you're missing is that what Nichols is saying is that it wasn't Nichols who designed the MP4/4 it was a team (as opposed to Murray seeming to say he designed it more-or-less by himself) with input from Murray as part of that team. It was also a team that had the use of the best engine that year (with appropriate cheats as mentioned above by ingegnere), the two best drivers and the opposition not doing a very good job for various reasons (e.g. Williams having the Judd engine that year after having had the best car for the two previous seasons).

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_MP4/4

“The McLaren MP4/4, also known as the McLaren-Honda MP4/4, is one of the most successful Formula One car designs of all time. Powered by Honda's RA168E 1.5-litre V6-turboengine and driven by teammates Alain Prostand Ayrton Senna, the car competed during the 1988 Formula One season. It was designed by American engineer Steve Nichols, the full responsibility for the design of the chassis having been conferred on him by Ron Dennis. Gordon Murray, as Technical Director, had the role of liaising between the drawing office and production.”

 

But that was to be expected, it doesn't proves anything more! Being an encyclopedia, and a contributive one, wikipedia states what the available, published, sources state, that's all. And these sources are the same one than the ones we are using here.
CQFD, as we say in French (CQFD: Ce Qu'il Fallait Démontrer, What was to be demonstrated)

Rgds

 

I'm not missing that. Not at all. Still, it doesn't make sense to me that this team - with Steve Nichols - could have made a one and only one "one year wonder".

Gordon Kimball, quoted by me above, says in the same "Motorsport Magazine" article that when he came back to McLaren in 1990 after his time at Ferrari, the cars where "not good at all", saved only by the very powerful Honda engine.
What happened?

Rgds

[...] Kimball had rejoined the [McLaren] team mid-season, initially as an observer during a post-British Grand Prix test. “I wanted to watch for the first day, to see what I thought,” he says. “The car looked awful. The back end was jumping around on corner entry, they were locking up under braking and the minute they put the power down it understeered and just wouldn’t turn. It was the worst of a race car. To try to fix it they had done a number of weird things to the set-up. When I asked why, they really didn’t have an answer. Among other things they were running a lot of droop restriction in the front [limiting the amount of down travel in the suspension].

“I said to Ayrton, ‘Let’s talk about this droop restriction’ and he said it helped the front end.
I said, ‘No it doesn’t, because the car doesn’t know it has droop restriction until it starts to lift the inside front wheel. Then you have no suspension at all because it’s bottomed out.’
“We talked about it for quite a while, he asked questions and looked at me. Then he didn’t say anything and I realised he had completely the wrong idea of how the front end worked and what the effect on the car was. Now that I’d explained it to him and he understood it, he wasn’t going to admit that he didn’t know or that he was wrong. Ayrton accomplished a lot but he was a very difficult character”.

 

"Not good at all" but still capable of winning the championship in 1989 and 1990 (and 1991 for that matter).

It wasn't a "one year wonder" although I don't see why it should be impossible to strike gold one time only - Beltoise won the 1972 Monaco Grand Prix, for example, leaving all the stars behind but never did anything like it again. McLaren had a Championship winning car in 1984, 1985 and 1986 and a race winning car in 1987 (even though Porsche had got left behind engine-wise). In 1988 they added the best engine - the Honda - and Senna. At the same time it should not be underestimated that the opposition was weak (as mentioned in my previous post). It seems to me that, even if the chassis was no better than anyone else's, the best engine plus the two best drivers equals a pretty good advantage. To put it another way, if Honda had stayed with Williams in 1988, rather than supplying Lotus, would McLaren have been that far ahead?

Look too at what Brabham (with Murray) had been doing in the few years before 1988. Championship win in 1983 but a downward slope since then and nowhere near where McLaren had been in the same period. So by the same token, why should Murray have suddenly designed a world-beater in 1988 when he hadn't for the previous four years?

 

Understandable. I don't doubt involvement by Murray. I just can't see everything on the car being of his design or approval. Even engineers are given some latitude in design standards. I don't see Patrick Head telling engineers every little detail on a car. Their scope is much bigger. Redefining the parameters....yes....where ever little bit goes...no. Nichols may not be the only hand in this car, but he never said it was his work alone. The letter by the team members indicates that their work was dismissed and that isn't a good thing. That itself can undue a tremendous amount of work. Nichols seems truthful that the team designed this car. I would think considering the time element and the development of this car so quickly, he would be accurate in both the members work and the suppliers side since he knew the small details like that of the carbon fibre shop.

 

I will not - NOT - dwelve into the Monaco 1972 race debate: Beltoise himself was very honest about that one, and said that it was entirely due to the rain: his handicap from an arm almost seized solid from a previous accident was cancelled by the slippery surface.
I can't - I just can't - intellectually - and suddenly accept that a team lead by Steve Nichols (or any other name, nationality, etc, etc, etc, etc...that would suits anyone) suddenly came "out of the blue" with the best car of the last 50 years.
Nothing less, Nothing more. Doesn't work out for me. Sorry.

Rgds

 

The Steve Nichols v. Gordon Murray argument comes at the right moment during the inter-season, just as the Hamilton v. Verstappen controversy is dying out.

Both issues proving to be quite divisive among FChatters.

 

But this discussion has less emotions involved. The facts are presented equally and both sides can make strong arguments. We may never know the total truth except for one thing......it was a hellva race car!

 

Well...not. As far as I am concerned, that is!
The debate about who can claim to be the father of the MP 4/4 has been raging for years and, frankly: I don't give a ****, as it will not be solved during the time space that's life has left for me.
What a proper racing car! Best two drivers of all times (If we keep Juan-Manuel Fangio out of the equation, that is...)
Looking at that car...WHAT A CAR! That's what Formula One is supposed to be, isn't it? Not a big bloated school bus driven by two "connected prima donnas".
Or I'm wrong?

Rgds

 

Nope. You pretty much nailed it. The current F1 formula resembles dry toast. Not quite as appetizing as being advertised.

 

Absolutely. Probably the best there ever was. An "icon," if I may be forgiven to say so.
I've still got a few videos from this season;and I do watch these from time to time.
What a car; what a season...

Rgds

 

We may never know, but the team who worked on the car do. The same people who happened to sign the letter, which was hidden from public for 30 years - for a reason.

It’s one thing as technical director to give a team general direction for a project. It’s another thing to turn direction into reality by actually getting it done. Nichols has said Murray had very little input in the project. To “get things done,” the technical director would have been in the trenches working on the development with the team. There should be little to zero “inaccuracies.” If 17 people who worked on the car were willing to put their name in a letter to corroborate inaccuracies quoted by someone who claims to take credit for the creation of the car, then perhaps the person making the claim is not deserving of the recognition.

Wake me up when someone (or 17 others) signs a letter stating Nichols is BSing and was not the main lead of the team developing the car.


Murray needed to make up for the failure of the BT55 and he needed to ensure his venture into selling road cars was successful. His stake at claiming MP4/4 creation was much higher. He took credit for someone else’s work to further his career. If I had a choice between an individual claiming all credit to himself vs an individual claiming credit for his team he lead, I’m going with the less egotistical individual willing to give credit to his team.

 

To an extent...maybe. My view is that of a mechanic and Nichols clearly states the intricacies of the car to such length that is hard to deny. Murray has never stated anything that would change such an argument. The 17 signatures align with Nichols statements so it does put Gordon in a rather bit of a predicament. If he acknowledged those facts he makes himself rather foolish to both investors and customers. That would bring down his house of card to some degree. If he holds the line, then it is a he said/she said type of moment. I believe he has too much at stake financially to give one inch to Nichols and the 17 employees. Hence the reason for the legal letter to cease and desist. He can't afford this to play out.

 

Gordon Murray is a terrific engineer; there is no doubt about it.

At Brabham, almost single-handed, he engineered cars that won 2 WDCs with Piquet, and later created the McLaren F1 that set a new benchmark in GT design.

He has formidable resumé, but by claiming the paternity of the MP4/4, he may have over-egged the pudding and brought some suspicion upon himself.

 

There is a difference in giving ideas in a conversation, drawing a sketch on a napkin, or even bringing a solution, and going through the lengthy effort of designing a piece of engineering as complex as a F1 car.

Gordon Murray must have crossed that divide in his mind, probably convincing himself that making a few suggestions to a group of designers involved with the MP4/4 made him the kingpin of the whole team.

His mistake in collaborating with Ian Bamsey was to give himself all the credit and ignore the design team at McLaren.

Once gone that way, there is no come back, and he certainly won't retract .

 

Very possible. Race cars for some reason play on people's emotions. One of this nature brings everyone out of the woodwork. I do not know the thoughts of Murray, but considering the time and how corporations adopted the "team" philosophy in the 80's, it is hard to even think one man designed this entire race car.
For me....it just seems a bit over the top.

 

This isn’t new but don’t think it’s been posted. It provides more evidence that Murray wasn’t just a bystander, per Nichols’ description:

 

No, but it does show that the car was built in an extremely short period of time thus backing Nichols statement of a delegated team effort based upon a timetable. No one person could design a car that quickly by themselves. This again puts Murray's role in question as the sole designer. The statement of the MP4/3 and its 2nd place Championship finish in 87 also indicates an evolutionary progess to the MP4/4.

 

Murray never said he was the sole designer and—as explained in the story—that is not the Technical Director’s role. But the car, as a concept and in the design direction can very much be dictated by the TD, which seems to be the case here.

 

You may wish to read post 44 again.

 

This!
This is why Prost was a very accomplished package.

 

Not fussed who designed the car but you have to marvel at the simplicity & neat packaging of the design. Obviously a Barnard creation imho.

For me it looks like a F! car and a winner. The F640 had the same credentials.

Tony

 

Well you claimed "Max is not WDC material"

That probably puts you onto one side of the division

 

Wherever there is a division, people are on one side or the other.