Steve Nichols and the McLaren MP4/4

[René]

This is a very interesting interview with Steve Nichols about his working years at McLaren and who really designed the MP4/4. Worth watching!

[Carl]

Dec 26, 2021 16:23:29 GMT René said:

This is a very interesting interview with Steve Nichols about his working years at McLaren and who really designed the MP4/4. Worth watching!

Wow!

             My high regard for Gordon Murray has come down several levels. After almost two decades working for the poisonous dwarf at Brabham, could the moral vacuum of ecclestone's megalomania have been contagious? If this assertion is true, for an acclaimed designer to claim credit for someone else's design is desperate and disgraceful.

[René]

It's quite shocking. Murray has designed fantastic cars but to claim that a successful design (the most successful F1 design) is yours when it is not true is unimaginable. This interview seems very honest to me and it is also confirmed by the entire design team at the time. Boy oh boy…

[robmarsh]

There has been quite a lot of claim and counter claim behind the scenes about who designed the MP4/4 with Gordon Murray claiming in a podcast that it was under his direction. Not sure who to believe but it is all a bit unsavoury to me.

[charleselan]

Not had a chance to sit through the film yet, I am not a fan of the guy whose YouTube channel produced this so have held off. I have read quite a bit about this situation and to be honest both sides are correct in my opinion.

To me Gordon Murray isn't the devil incarnate here. He was appointed by Ron Dennis as successor to the departed John Barnard and assumed the role of Technical Director, so ultimately he was head of design at that time. From what I have seen Murray laid down the design brief that the MP4/4 should be a low laying car in design concept and in so doing also brought his similarly conceptualised drawings of his Brabham BT55 with him. Knowing how Gordon works I bet he had lots of pencil drawings of what he wanted the car to look like as well.

I would say that after that Steve Nichols and his team were then tasked with drawing up the car and all its detail components. So therefore in my eyes both parties are correct in saying they designed the car, Murray conceptualised the car, much as Colin Chapman did with many of his Lotus race cars like the Lotus 25, but the actual design drawings etc were done by others who it can be said quite correctly also designed the car.

One question to ask yourselves is this; would Steve Nichols have come up with the concept of the MP4/4 without Murray's original brief?

[Carl]

As always, the panel of judges instructs that my level of technical expertise should keep me out of the jury room.

[mikael]

The Wikipedia page on the car seems to give a well-balanced account on the design responsibilities.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaren_MP4/4

Makes you wonder if Steve Nichols hasn't forgotten some conversations (with, say, Gordon Murray) during the now almost 35 years that have passed. It seems a bit hard to believe that Murray was interested only in factory floor plans and the like, and that he had no interest whatsoever in the development of the new car ...

[Carl]

According to Steve Nichols, his objection stems from the book written by Ian Bamsey which credits Gordon Murray almost entirely, above and beyond any guidance he provided, and overlooks all the other designers.

This article in MotorSport may be more objective than Bamsey's book or the film by James Martin:

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

-----------

I am willing to settle the dispute by accepting full credit, including all monetary residuals.

[mikael]

Related to this topic, the mentioned Wikipedia page gives the following information:

"The MP4/4 was voted the greatest Formula One car of all time by a panel of Formula One engineers and designers. It was also voted greatest race car of the 20th century by Autosport readers."

This was decided by vote, by designers and racing fans alike; so it is what it is. But as I understand it, the MP4/4 was not a revolutionary car. It was rather a car that got everything right, under the regulation constraints of the time - like Ferrari did in the early 00's; and like Mercedes did, from '14 on.

But to me, a car that qualifies for such accolades should rather be a car that introduced a radical new idea - a car that radically changed "the face" of Formula One.

Like the 1959 Cooper, a nimble little rear-engine car in a field of large front-engine ditto. A couple of year later, everybody had followed the idea of Cooper.

Or the 1967 Lotus 49, with the Cosworth engine that also acted as a load-supporting structure. Very soon, all followed that idea.

Or the 1977 Renault, that pioneered the idea - and possibility - of a small-displacement turbocharged engine. A few years later, everybody went along the same road.

Or the 1977 Lotus 78, introducing "ground effect". It was so efficient that everybody had to copy it - immediately.

(There are many more "revolutionary" ideas that F1 probably would be better without, but which nonetheless changed F1 "forever", like the electric gear change, the carbon-fibre chassis, ...)

[chrisb]

I watched the full length interview, and whilst no great fan of either Gordon nor Steve it was an interesting watch. The fact that so many of McLaren's designers - engineers etc protested Gordon's claim, including the likes of Bob Bell, does add weight to Steve's claims. Gordon attended the launch of Haynes's book and issued a letter threatening Steve etc but has done nothing since. Gordon was also invited to respond to the documentary claims but has failed to do so. Steve makes a very good argument as to whyGordon's claims are basically untrue and I found myself wondering what is the truth and what isn't.

It was also interesting how Steve viewed several drivers and obviously is not a fan of Nigel but was of Ayrton and Alain, and was quite scathing of Ferrari.

He did show that the MP4/4 was evolutionary and not revolutionary and as Mikael says it just all clicked and worked really well, however whilst it was extremely successful how anyone can suggest it is the 'car' that was the 'greatest' is just perplexing. As Mikael points out all these other car designs moved the world of motor racing forward and I would include the Lotus 25 and 72 in any list of great revolutionary designs.

[René]

Dec 28, 2021 6:36:01 GMT chrisb said:

I watched the full length interview, and whilst no great fan of either Gordon nor Steve it was an interesting watch. The fact that so many of McLaren's designers - engineers etc protested Gordon's claim, including the likes of Bob Bell, does add weight to Steve's claims...

That's exactly it. If it was only about an old bitter man who felt that he received too little recognition, you could still have your doubts. But since the entire design team at the time endorses Nichols' version, the story becomes a bit more uncomfortable. Murray is a fantastic car designer, but of course also quite an ego. Maybe he got caught up in something and started to believe in his own truth…