The argument behind F1’s most dominant car: Origin story of the MP4/4

[@robertm5969]

An interview with Steve Nichols' side of the story was recently released, along with signed documents from other team members attesting that Murray was not the designer. I suggest anyone interested in the topic check it out

[@nickpappas4133]

I watched that interview and believe Steve Nichols and coworkers are the true designers. Steve had done some good work and design before F1.

[@NormanStansfield1]

@@nickpappas4133 Some of the names who signed that McLaren internal letter went on to be major F1 names as engineer-designers including Bob Bell and Neil Oatley. Neil at McLaren and Bob eventually moved to Renault. Bob notably with the R25 and 26 which Alonso won back to back WC's. Steve and his co-workers created the MP4/4. I think if the MP4/3 had used the same Honda V6 turbo engine, with some mods, it would have been a dominant car.

[@ronduz1281]

Watched it! Great story . What Ron Dennis ever say about it?

[@nickpappas4133]

@@ronduz1281 that would be interesting to hear from Ron Dennis, I just watched a podcast where Nico Rosberg interviewed Flavio Briatore and Briatore hates Dennis

[@stephenpavlov8942]

The things Murray says about being 'the designer' of the car portray him as a manager and not doing anything technical. The fact that the people that worked thar claimed to have actually worked on the design still have the drawings they made says a lot.

[@Showmetheevidence-]

My theory? It was Raikkonen. He’s secretly about 150 years old and started in design before he became a driver.

[@emmatyrkko]

D.B. Ht

[@ekzu12321]

This must be it.

[@IHiggs]

“.....” - Kimi Raikkonen

[@_chp_]

*gasp*

[@bwphotographer3484]

"Some say....."

[@SavedbyHim]

It's quite clear that Murray had very little to do with the design of the MP4/4 from the signed letter from all the engineers involved with the car...

[@Andrew-vx2ls]

Agreed. With the exception of the gearbox R&D as acknowledged by Steve.

[@xXxXcrosbykidXxXx]

How could that possibly be true when Honda was specifically developing an engine based on Murray's requests to keep the car lower? Steve claims it was just happenstance, the car was lower because technology was better and the drivetrain allowed it. But it wasn't happenstance, it was because Gordon Murray asked Honda to make it happen, to suit his vision for the car. As already mentioned he also had part in the gearbox to make it happen. So, even if Steve designed the car, it was Gordon the one steering the engineering philosophy behind the design of the car. Unless the presumably honorable Japanese Honda engineers are lying to give undeserved credit to Gordon for no reason at all.

[@Andrew-vx2ls]

@@xXxXcrosbykidXxXx 1.The Honda engine was used the year before (Lotus Honda 99T with the first 5.5" carbon Tilton clutch). This clutch allowed the engine to be lower by the difference in clutch diameter. 2. The Honda was smaller than previous Porsche engine (size / relative heights of the engine and gearbox, it was a no brainer to carry this across. 3. Murray (BT55 ) had tried to lower the drivetrain (non structural BMW engine canted over at 20°). Weismann supplied Brabham. This was an aero disaster. despite Murray lowering the whole car and revisiting the position of the driver (Cf. 1960s Lotus) 4. The stars lined up when the compact (normally installed) Honda engine with its small clutch was secured by McLaren and Murray brought asked Weismann for an inline gearbox to taker advantage of the Tilton clutch making it possible to lower the complete drivetrain even further. Logically the Lotus driving position was adopted. 5. No one disputes who was tech director and who was the designer.

[@SavedbyHim]

@@xXxXcrosbykidXxXx I didn't say it, the signed letter and everyone who worked on the car except Murray...

[@solos1988]

@@xXxXcrosbykidXxXx Honda had already developed and ran the engine with other F1 teams the previous year. Honda was also already working on a lower version of that same engine *before* they teamed up with McLaren (because Tilton had developed a smaller diameter clutch *the year before*), and before Murray worked there.

[@TheTradesmanLU2001]

As a kid who grew up in the 80’s , this was always the car /livery/color scheme that I always associated with open wheel racing. It’s iconic

[@fidan2fast]

well, to be honest, Marlboro was the Red Bull of the late 80's... it was everywhere in motorsports

[@amjan]

@@fidan2fast Marlboro, Camel and Agip ;)

[@amjan]

Yup, the F1 McLarens, the Indycar Penskes, rallying Lancias and many more had the Marlboro sposorship and colour scheme.

[@d.e.b.b5788]

But the best color schemes was Lotus; pick either the red/white/gold or black & gold. Gorgeous cars, and they won the WDC with both. Add the Indy wedge turbine in there, too, as they ran it successfullyin in the rain in F1, I think only once, and once the rest of F1 saw 4wd effectiveness in the wet, it was quickly banned.

[@paulcaswell2813]

Works Lancias in the '80s were Martini-sponsored. Only the late 70s Stratos ever carried the Marlboro red and white. Lancia's No2 team was the Totip liveried one...

[@chicobicalho5621]

There is no longer an argument as to who designed the MP4/4. Today it is known widely Steve Nichols designed it, and Murray tried to usurp credit for the design to overcome the disaster that was the BT55, and save face, a pretty shifty move.

[@elta6241]

Errrrr, no. Nichols did absolutely nothing before that car, or afterwards. The guy is a charlatan. If he was any good he would have taken over from John Barnard. He didn't.

[@kieranmark3450]

Brawn BGP 001, how much of it was Honda's leftover design and how much was Brawn genius!?

[@karlbassett8485]

Well Ross Brawn was in charge when it was the Honda team so it would still have been his baby. Only the engine changed really.

[@stevenlarratt3638]

Brawn easy answer

[@kieranmark3450]

As mclaren has shown changing engine is no easy thing, Brawn somehow pulled it off. I've seen some pictures of a scale model in the wind tunnel but a lot changed from when Honda backed out it seems. Feel like it would make a great video like this MP4/4 one

[@stevenlarratt3638]

@@kieranmark3450 diffuser and aero was key, button was thankfully ahead enough as the development wasnt keeping pace as others caught them up during the season.

[@kieranmark3450]

@@stevenlarratt3638 interesting point, if you Google the model it's clearly a very different aero design, especially the nose. Was this possibly BAR's design before Brawn engineers took over? Where they even new engineers? Cool if autosport can find out! Brawns aero advantage is even more impressive considering I don't think they ran a KERS system like Ferrari and Renault

[@edwardrichardson8254]

There is no debate. That the BT55 - so awful it was the death knell of the Brabhams team - was somehow the engineering cornerstone for the winningest F1 car is absurd on the face of it. Why would they want to take a 2-year old design that was a black stain on Murray's record and run with it? Up until that point, Murray averaged 1.8 Grand Prix wins in 12 years - yeah, that's the guy behind 15 wins in the '88 season, righto! The backend of the MP4/4 is identical to the MP4/3. The aerodynamics were a carryover and evolution of the MP4/3 as well. A pile of engineers involved in the car signed a letter refuting Murray's claims, which he began to assert when Ron Dennis had him design the first roadcar for McLaren Automotive (which explains Dennis' diplomatic silence on the issue: vested interest), the McLaren F1. Team Coordinator Jo Ramirez also backs up Nichols' and the engineers' claims. The car's low-slung profile was a given due to the new fuel regulations and engine, new changes that drove that philosophy. The engineers stiffened the chassis as the drivers had to run the last part of the race on fuel dip, having "fallen behind" on fuel, so they could not rely on boost to consolidate the win, simply driver ability.

[@srinitaaigaura]

Now that JayEmm has brought out the full interview with Steve Nichols, I know realize he was very underrates

[@eduardhenny5725]

Great carguy Murray, but also full off himself, which leads to claiming credits to jobs not done. Fits the persona.

[@SiamHossain7]

@@eduardhenny5725 just rich assholes being rich assholes

[@JohnFromAccounting]

A bad engine can destroy a car. McLaren-Honda in their second iteration was preposterously bad because the Honda engine fell far short of the requirements.

[@MrEshah]

Their second entry had them years behind development. Also after switching from mclaren to rb teams it became quite evident that honda wasn't solely at fault with their results

[@solos1988]

When John Barnard left McLaren, Ron Dennis divided his former duties into two separate roles. Dennis promoted Steve Nichols to the role of Chief Designer, and then hired Murray to fill the more managerial/bureaucratic role of Technical Director. Before the design of the MP4/4, Murray told the McLaren engineers that he had been hired to observe how McLaren "worked as an organization, not to design cars", "he stressed to us that he wasn't here to design cars", and, true to his word, "He was very hands-off". - Matthew Jeffreys, Design Engineer, McLaren MP4/4. The MP4/3 was designed by Nichols, with some unavoidable holdovers from John Barnard's MP4/2 due to time and cost considerations - and to fit the same failure-prone TAG engine. This is why it was referred to as a "hodge-podge". Yet it was still able to win 3 races and came in second in the championship behind only the Honda-powered Williams cars (and ahead of the Honda-powered Lotus cars). Honda began work on lowering their engine before they switched from Williams to McLaren (the 5.5" Tilton clutch that made the smaller engine possible became available the year before). The FIA also mandated a 45 liter decrease in fuel cell size for 1988, enabling lowering of the monocoque height. Nichols simply fit the driver within the profile of the available components in the MP4/4 - the same as he had done with the MP4/3 - and the same as any other designer would have done. Murray's stated primary goal was aerodynamic - increase airflow to the rear wing. Nichols' stated primary goal was mechanical - lower the center of gravity. Testing later indicated that the change in center of gravity from the MP4/3 to the MP4/4 resulted in an improvement of almost a second per lap, while the aerodynamic improvement was "microscopic". McLaren had only 6 months (and 12 engineers) to design and build the MP4/4. They didn't have the time or the manpower to make ambitious or radical changes. They also knew the rules were about to change yet again, and they would have to build an entirely different car for the next year (in fact, Neil Oatley already had another team working on the MP4/5 at the same time Nichols' team was working on the MP4/4). So the MP4/4 never could have been more than a quick refinement of Nichols' MP4/3, built around a smaller engine, and a smaller fuel cell. Even with completely different engines, fuel cells, and driver positions, the similarities between the MP4/3 and MP4/4 are undeniable, from any angle.

[@solos1988]

Continued... "Steve (Nichols) had the latitude to do the car the way he wanted", "Gordon (Murray) was more of a bridge between the technical and commercial side." - Bob Bell, Aerodynamicist, McLaren MP4/4. "The MP4/4 was Steve's (Nichols) car" - Neil Oatley, Design Engineer, McLaren MP4/5. McLaren Team Manager Jo Ramirez confirmed the MP4/4 was a development of the (Steve Nichols) MP4/3 and that Murray had very little to do with the design of either of Nichols' cars (MP4/3 or MP4/4). In contrast to Murray's later claim that he convinced Honda to lower their engine, Murray originally admitted that Honda had lowered their engine of their own accord, and he knew nothing about it. He also originally admitted it was luck that the lower engine and smaller fuel cell came about at the same time to result in a lower chassis for the MP4/4.

[@NormanStansfield1]

@@solos1988 I really wish we could go back in time and drop the Honda engine, with some mods, into Steve's MP 4/3. I bet it would have been a much better car. No slam at Porsche but Honda seemed to have the right package during that time frame.

[@brendanbrown3100]

@@NormanStansfield1 Prost would have cleaned up in 87!

[@greentea9335]

@@NormanStansfield1 Absolutely!

[@bjs7442]

Steve Nichols title was Chief Designer and who would base a new design on a car that was a failure ie the Brabham against a car that had won in the previous year. Ive seen the Steve Nichols video and he clearly should take all the credit in my opinion especially when you see the supporting written evidence at the time and the support of the design team for Steve.I am sure Gordon as Technical director wants to be associated with the design of the MP4/4 and any designer can find aspects of a car that they may have used in other cars but the chief designer is the person who brings it all together That was his job description . Thats my opinion.

[@DrewlarkFun]

I think we all know that F1 does not work in such a way where one designer makes a very big difference after one year of employment. Development takes time, which is why I believe Steve Nichols' side of the story.

[@timomomomo969]

It’s remarkable how much smaller the MP4/4 was than today’s F1 cars.

[@iwantanaivanovic2962]

It is not about cars or designers, you are "good old days" fanboy. It is about FIA F1 Technical regulations, back then vs now.

[@zacharyradford5552]

How was that a old days are better statement. Just made a very clear statement about how much longer F1 cars are now. You are just an ass a really stupid ass.

[@stavrosk.2868]

Today's cars look like boats and sound like shit

[@beefjiggler5665]

@@stavrosk.2868 Today’s cars are also faster, much more fuel efficient, and way safer. I’d take that over some looks and sounds any day.

[@WaRLoKWYATT]

The MP4/6 was way smaller

[@crxdelsolsir]

People trashing and bashing Honda do not know or remember the MP4/4 the most dominant F1 car was powered by a Honda. Honda has been there and done that.. so they know how to win in the pinnacle of motor sports.

[@boltmix7294]

Except the drivers and the McLaren enginers are almost fully resposible for how good the car was. Honda doesn't know how to win the pinnacle of Motorsport, as was proven by how *GARBAGE* they did as constructors

[@materialismohistorico1010]

@@boltmix7294 they are doing well this year, mercedes doesnt count, its another race category

[@julemandenudengaver4580]

@Tediuki Suzuki to boring, to safe, to many money so no privateers,

[@JH-jo9wt]

Honda has 70 F1 wins, 6 Constructors, 5 drivers World titles, most dominant engine in any season of F1, highest revving most powerful naturally aspirated engine in F1 history 965bhp RA004E. In grand prix bikes you know the other "pinnacle of 2 wheel motorsport" its not even close. Honda has won 309 races, Yamaha 231, MV 139 and Suzuki 89 wins. They utterly dominate Moto GP as constructors and engine suppliers. Guess what F1 engine is the only one that has beaten the dominant Mercedes this year?? Give you a clue it starts with a........H "Honda doesn't know what its like to win at the pinnacle of motorsport" LMFAO You blame them for a Ross Brawn chassis in Brackley that was shit even though it scored a pole and race win, 86 points, multiple podiums and finished 4th in the constructors in its first year? And that's your basis for Honda not knowing what winning is?

[@FunkyMonkMan]

This has aged well...

[@solos1988]

The MP4/3 was designed by Nichols, with some unavoidable holdovers from John Barnard's MP4/2 due to time and cost considerations - and to fit the same failure-prone TAG engine. This is why it was referred to as a "hodge-podge". Yet it was still able to win 3 races and came in second in the championship behind only the Honda-powered Williams cars (and ahead of the Honda-powered Lotus cars). Honda began work on lowering their engine before they switched from Williams to McLaren (the 5.5" Tilton clutch that made the smaller engine possible became available the year before). The FIA also mandated a 45 liter decrease in fuel cell size for 1988, enabling lowering of the monocoque height. Nichols simply fit the driver within the profile of the available components in the MP4/4 - the same as he had done with the MP4/3 - and the same as any other designer would have done. Murray's stated primary goal was aerodynamic - increase airflow to the rear wing. Nichols' stated primary goal was mechanical - lower the center of gravity. Testing later indicated that the change in center of gravity from the MP4/3 to the MP4/4 resulted in an improvement of almost a second per lap, while the aerodynamic improvement was "microscopic". McLaren had only 6 months (and 12 engineers) to design and build the MP4/4. They didn't have the time or the manpower to make ambitious or radical changes. They also knew the rules were about to change yet again, and they would have to build an entirely different car for the next year (in fact, Neil Oatley already had another team working on the MP4/5 at the same time Nichol's team was working on the MP4/4). So the MP4/4 never could have been more than a quick refinement of Nichols' MP4/3, built around a smaller engine, and a smaller fuel cell. Even with completely different engines, fuel cells, and driver positions, the similarities between the MP4/3 and MP4/4 are undeniable, from any angle.

[@lap42_]

The car had much less frontal area than any other car to date, its main advantage was aerodynamic. Where did you get this “microscopic” thing?

[@nicholasmassey3046]

@@lap42_ it is tiny when Murray claimed it was better by about 27%....Ha ha....I used to respect Murray but not so sure now.

[@greentea9335]

@@lap42_ Haynes' "McLaren MP4/4 Owners' Workshop Manual: 1988"

[@Sandwich420]

When McLaren got back with Honda, and were having issues, McLaren blamed everything on Honda. Well, as we can see from this season, McLaren has a new engine and are farther back on the field than the Toro Honda cars. McLaren needs new management.

[@PratikParija]

Lol My thoughts were the exact same! I was like if you kept saying Honda was the reason for the disastrous performance then should you be doing better now that you have new "better" Renault engines? Yeah seems like someone wasn't look at themselves as the cause of the issue...

[@barryfowles-zl5ib]

What seems to have gone unnoticed about the latest McLaren/Honda partnership is how Alonso in practically every race moaned in public or on the car to pit radio how much power he was down compared to their rivals, it seems a lot of this lack of straight line speed was down to too much downforce, now Alonso claims to be one of the best drivers ever, I cannot believe Senna or Schumacher would not have identified the problem of accessive downforce at the first test session.

[@Ahito1984]

As Belgian, I feel how unfair was McLaren management, knowing Ron Dennis brought Vandoorne the way he brought Hamilton alongside Alonso, he was dismissed in middle of process, it's so obvious how management was so bad they couldn't get a replacement seat for Stoffel in 2019. Really, I'm bitter at how they crushed a promising youth career. Hope Mercedes can get him back on the track through FE

[@cooltwittertag]

Well they did and now they are back on track for the battle for the third place.

[@smartwatcherss5718]

Looks like mclaren closed the gap. Using the renault engine wasnt that bad.

[@kodefashmodefa]

Nichols’ account of what happened with the gearbox was less it was “Murray’s baby” and more of a suggestion to nichols on who he needed to talk to. For Murray to claim he waltz up in the garage and showed them a bunch of drawings of a brabham car is likely bullshit, and the corroboration also bull. Oatley is one of the 18 people who signed that letter disputing much of what Murray claimed. Now a lot of this info has only JUST recently came to light but it miffs me when 1 guy tries to pretend like he was the only person designing that car.

[@gringostarr69]

The truth will always come out one day. No matter you try to whitewash it in your head. After a while of telling a lie, you start to beleave in it your self..

[@richardstock1]

Best video this year by far, well done guys

[@stayfrosty6290]

The video style is very similar to Mustard's.

[@iqwan9850]

2015

[@iqwan9850]

2016

[@ultimateracingtips2799]

Shared a car with Steve Nichols a couple years back and was told by a lot of respected racers that the MP4/4 was his design. Great video, the graphics with the cars were cool.

[@festol1]

Yep, it was Mr Nichols (kzbin.info/www/bejne/a37daqF3r9h_jrc)

[@andcunsan]

No 3D CAD, no 2D CAD, no FEA and no CFD .. everything done on paper and by hand. Lots of ingenuity. Impressive! Those guys were true engineers they are an inspiration for my generation.

[@GodoySorocaba]

I'd like to give you more likes but just one is possible!

[@filipborin555]

Yes but with Cad i can do that 10 times faster than them.Your damn moroon

[@GodoySorocaba]

@@filipborin555 Actually, THEY could do it 10 times faster today, not you!

[@XYZ-RC]

Just Catia.

[@shooter7a]

Actually, McLaren started using 2D CAD in 1987...so they would have been using it to some extent for the MP 4/4. I would guess they were using AutoCAD 2.5 or 2.6. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5Kzi32ld9mWoKs !!!

[@shooter7a]

There is no doubt who was responsible for the BT55. That was Murray, and the car sucked. As for the MP-4/4, a very interesting perspective on the car can be gained by reading Iam Bamsey's book on the MP-4/4. Who did Bamsey consult with at McLaren when writing this book? Gordon Murray. Bamsey did not speak to any of the other technical staff at McLaren. So how good was the book? If Murray was the designer, then he should have had been able to provide good technical insight to Ian Bamsey, right? The book is regarded as THE WORST technical book on an F1 car ever written. It was so bad, and so filled with egregious errors that the design team at McLaren wrote a letter to the head of McLaren regarding the book. In support of this letter, a technical rebuttal in 82 items was also released by the McLaren design team, which specifically identified error after error and pages of outright lies. So Murray proved he did not know much about the details of the car based on the crap book he was the main source for. Murray may have been a good designer at one point, but the time he got to McLaren, he was a has been designer who graduated to a liar and grifter who took credit for the work others did, while simultaneous claiming THEY were taking credit for HIS work. Go to 50:20 in this video...read the letter for yourself and see who signed it. Go to 52:45 to read the specific listing of errors in Bamsey's book, which again Murray was the primary source for. kzbin.info/www/bejne/a37daqF3r9h_jrc

[@dave7856]

Seems like the more I watch these videos on the MP4/4 the more I hear Gordon claiming totally his design with no mention of anyone else, Steve Nichols two youtube video interviews sheds a very good light on who did what and who’s design it really was. And by the way there is no physical resemblance to the Bt55 thankfully.

[@Stug9680]

Steve Nichols, Gordon Murray, Neil Oatley... what an extraordinary triumvirat of engineers... With Honda, with Prost and Senna... Absolutely unbeatable. Best team in history of F1.

[@louixvianacarlo5808]

absolutely true

[@KaDuWin]

Totally agreed, well said. Honda made potent and reliable engines, and with The Professor and Magic Senna driving, it was legit dominance that F1 hasn't seen since.

[@jondash2939]

You say that

[@animalcol1]

I'm not sure. Definitely one of the best, but not the very best. Ferrari Michael years, Mercedes for the last 7 years. They must have a shout in that title?

[@Nyctophiliac.]

@@animalcol1 i dont think there can be an all time, 'very best,' driver. they all raced in different eras against different drivers with different cars.

[@peteo3436]

This hasn't aged well. Read the letter signed by all the other players in the team supporting Nicholls. Murray has WAY overstated his input into the car.

[@shooter7a]

Murray's input was limited basically to driver position. And that is valuable input, no doubt. But that does not mean he "designed the car". He offered valuable input on a key design parameter. A dozen other parameters went into the total design, and the person responsible for balancing all those parameters in the context of a total design was Steve Nichols. Note how at the McLaren 60th Anniversary Reunion in 2023 Murray was not even in attendance, while they brought Steve up on stage, also with the Honda engineering team leaders, to discuss the MP4-4. That tells you right there who was the design leader.

[@evilelf5967]

hamilton had a drive in the mp4/4 and said it was mindblowing.....tells you a lot about how brutal it was.

[@skuastone9698]

No he never, he said it was poor.

[@evilelf5967]

whatever

[@filidji]

@@skuastone9698 kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5OumIpjnL1qias check your sources...

[@rafaelrp07]

Until today is a very powerful engine... 1,200hp from this small engine. It's mind blowing if you think it was only in 90's computers started to be inserted on F1 cars. Even to shift gears it was all mechanical. I'm brazilian, very proud of Senna, but I consider Proust a extraordinary driver. Only a few pilots could handle that car on the track and McLaren had the best car ever with best pilots they could have (at that time and ever). They ruled F1!

[@dnbmania]

@@skuastone9698 unlucky

[@AntonioSTM]

The BT55 was an epic failure, it destroyed Brabham and Murray's F1 career. Theres even a letter to McLaren leadership (Dennis/Whitnarsh) denouncing the lies spread by Murray and published in the book MP4/4 a technical appraisal. Gordon Murray had no hand or input in the development of the MP4/4 neither the MP4/5.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

That's complete bullshit. Technical directors always have input in the development of the car. That's their job.

[@greentea9335]

@@JohnFromAccounting AntonioSTM is correct. Murray was a paper-pusher who had exceedingly little to do with the actual design/engineering of the MP4/4 and MP4/5.

[@canismarvel1]

Things like this make me fall in love with this sport again and again.

[@100flite]

The best package ever. From the car designer, aerodynamicist, manager, drivers, chassis to engine. Never gonna beat this one!

[@ciaronsmith4995]

By far the strongest driver line-up and car combination in F1 history. Other drivers have had raw pace in cars, but none matched the consistency, reliability and dominance of this package.

[@Coen80]

Not so sure.. We have Mercedes and Hamilton. 15 front-row lock outs i thought in 2016? and just as many wins, or even more. Granted it was a longer season, but the Merc is reliable as tax, Hamilton is super-consistent, and together they are dominating.

[@dotdot8614]

Coen80 2016 was Rosberg's year more than Hamilton, even with more wins and podiums, Ham had less finishes than Nico, owning to a good bunch of reliability issues attacking him

[@paulcaswell2813]

Mercedes in the 1950s with Fangio and Moss wasn't a bad set-up...

[@rdfranzoi]

First: i'm really sorry about my bad english. So, i think Claron said about "all package". Both pilots are the best at that time (even today, then are considered top 5 in all lists, at least). The car have a 93%. The resources, the attention, the crowd... ALL handicap possible points was there. But, i agree about MB with Hamilton and Rosberg being a strong package, but they don't reach all, something missing there. I don't know what, just 'feel' it.

[@chrisclermont456]

@Tediuki Suzuki OMG, that's utter fantasy!!! Bottas is more consistent than Ricciardo and look at the comparison. Maybe if Max Verstappen took over at Mercedes, what you said may be valid. Even Vettel fails to do what Hamilton has done at Mercedes.

[@salmanazam9444]

When you've got Ron Dennis, Gordon Murray and Steve Nichols behind the car; Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost in the car, you have a legend and an icon. The MP4/4 is the most dominant single-season F1 car ever, with a staggering winning percentage of 93.8%.

[@madkhaliqfarhan]

Mercedes W07 of 2016 is great either... Unfortunately, its successor W08 failed to break more records in 2017! 😭

[@salmanazam9444]

@@madkhaliqfarhan Yes, the W07 comes second in winning percentage, if I am not wrong...

[@mrmartin2079]

GM has some explaining to do after that recent Steve Nichols interview - it's very telling that after serving them (GM to SN) a cease and desist letter GM Never followed it up and brought them to court ( presumably as discovery would Not be in his favour )

[@bhavikshah5016]

Great videography and content.. just felt the old pictures were coming back to life

[@777MAV]

I really enjoyed recent interview with Steve Nichols, great insight in F1 design process of that era!

[@hugolafhugolaf]

Having watched the JayEmm on cars interview with Nichols AND the evidence presented, it’s pretty clear that it was him.

[@Richard.Hybels]

There is a new two hour vid of Steve Nichols that lays out his case for him being the designer along with documents signed by Gordon saying so.

[@greentea9335]

Undeniable proof that Steve Nichols was the true designer of the MP4/4. And the entire engineering team at McLaren have all said the same thing. In writing.

[@chefizzy2238]

Marlboro was a factor behind Honda's and Mclaren's success change my mind

[@ziggypop79]

I agree with you

[@hungrysurfer9471]

A small team run by Steve Nichols designed all the drawings and cad.

[@FelixIsMyName]

Dear Autosport, could you do one of these for the Williams FW14B please?

[@leetymcleet6490]

Yeah, good call. What he said :)

[@georgewinsall3832]

Have a read of Adrian Newey’s autobiography, he goes into loads of details and it’s a fascinating read. The FW14B is effectively an evolution of his 1989/90 March if I remember rightly

[@TheTradesmanLU2001]

The 2010 RB. The 14 Merc, the 2000-2004 Ferrari’s. To add a few .

[@d1want34]

Love that car and the livery

[@MindofMatter]

That Williams, and also the first Brawn GP car

[@hughjanus3378]

It is abundantly clear that Murray was shuffling paper and pretending to be ringleader while Nichols and his team were busy with the creation of the MP4/4. His statement that he had a “pretty clean sheet of paper “ with the MP4/4 is proof that he was not involved in its creation. I watched the interview with Nichols. He has a history of ingenuity in his engineering career and he is a team player. Just what was needed to create the MP4/4. Murray has learned the jargon but he doesn’t have the magic.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Murray was responsible for many firsts in Formula 1. He was a genius innovator at Brabham, and brought that genius to McLaren, where he was supported for the first time by other geniuses. That's why the MP4/4 was so much better than everything else. Brabham always had a fraction of the budget that other teams had, and the fact it could compete with the big names in the first place was incredible. It's self serving for Nichols and Murray to claim primary credit for the car. Murray without Nichols was a chief innovator and winner of championships. Nichols without Murray fell short at Ferrari, Sauber and Jordan, before returning to McLaren where Adrian Newey had already moved in.

[@jonlyons1033]

Both sides of the coin. Not that I give a toss. They are both God's to this neanderthal.

[@greentea9335]

@@JohnFromAccounting Murray was a paper-pusher, and had exceedingly little influence on the design of the MP4/4. He did have some input on the gearbox - though he didn't design that either. The geniuses collaborating on the MP4/4 were Steve Nichols and the rest of his team.

[@roye2479]

It's phenomenal when you consider the car was designed "old school" on paper, and yet everything worked almost to perfection. As with most championship winning teams, you have to spread the accolades around; Mclaren had the best engines, best drivers best chassis, best mechs\engineers\designers, etc How about a vid on Villeneuves championship Williams?

[@Jamo1098]

Go and Watch Jay Emm's video on this. His interview with Steve Nichols is absolutely fantastic

[@SilverfoxThe]

I loved this era of F1, especially the cars. In this discussion, I suspect both Steve Nicolls and Gordon Murray are right. The MP4/4 wasn't a completely clean sheet as lessons from previous MP4s would surely have been applied in an evolutionary manner (as per Steve Nicolls), together with more radical concepts (as per Gordon Murray).

[@TonyTgratestbandeverterry]

what about John Barnard top designer no mention of him, He instigated the MP4s

[@solos1988]

​@@TonyTgratestbandeverterry Absolutely. John Barnard and Steve Nichols joined McLaren at the same time, and they worked together for 6 years on all the previous MP4's (with Barnard as the Chief Designer). The MP4/4 was an evolution of Nichols' MP4/3 scaled down to fit the smaller Honda engine, and the smaller fuel cells dictated by the FIA. The MP4/3, in turn, had been an evolution of Barnard's MP4/2.

[@solos1988]

@Wednesday Murray's role was more managerial/bureaucratic. Before the design of the MP4/4, Murray told the McLaren engineers that he had been hired to observe how McLaren "worked as an organization, not to design cars", "he stressed to us that he wasn't here to design cars", and, true to his word, "He was very hands-off". - Matthew Jeffreys, Design Engineer, McLaren MP4/4

[@shooter7a]

@@solos1988 until the car worked great, then Murray claimed credit!

[@bjs7442]

@@shooter7a I understand there is documented proof that Steve Nichols designed it and the rest of the design team have backed him up.

[@Coyotehello]

There is a few sure ways to decide who designed the MP44. Murray was tech director, his job description has not one mention of designing any car. Nichol's job description on the other hand specifically says that he is the one designing the MP 44 turbo version and Neil the MP44 non-turbo version. These documents are readily available. Then you have, I think 15, of the 17 people involved in the development of the MP44 signing a letter to McLaren demanding that the proper credits be given to Neil and Steve. Then you can look at what all these people have achieved in their respective career and there is one who has not achieved much. Finally that individual is pretentious enough to pretend he by himself designed the most successful F1 car in history? So... yeah.

[@JohnFromAccounting]

Gordon Murray didn't achieve much? Delusional. Alongside Chapman and Newey, he's one of the greatest designers in F1 history.

[@greentea9335]

​@@JohnFromAccounting Murray isn't even close to being one of the "greatest designers in F1 history". Out of the 20 or more F1 cars that he (actually) designed, none of them ever scored higher than 2nd in the constructor's championship - and only two even did that well. And his last several attempts (including the notoriously awful "laydown" BT55) were such failures that DNFs outnumbered points, a driver died, and the team folded.

[@breatharian2009]

And now the truth is out that Murray's acclaim for the MP4/4 is simply bollocks!

[@Brooks22n]

Steve Nichols Designed it ‼️

[@TheKingkingg]

Super awesome, how people forget about Honda's contribution to F1 and to Maclaren success to the point of having their own road car manufacturing.

[@richardpurves]

Williams FW15C CVT ... mainly because it was banned before it ever raced

[@VigneshBalasubramaniam]

If only that car were allowed to race, CVTs would be so much better now, and we wouldn't have CVTs acting like a traditional gearbox simply because people "didn't like the sound" that CVTs made.

[@Phos9]

Vignesh Balasubramaniam I have a suspicion that the Williams CVT was a hydraulic CVT rather than a push belt.

[@zoomerzoomer-jn7rf]

thank god it didn't race , if you have seen a young david coultard driving it up and down that runway testing it, it was totally irritating to hear it never change gear, sounded like a slipping clutch.

[@VigneshBalasubramaniam]

@@zoomerzoomer-jn7rf Its this that killed the CVT. Sure the noise might be annoying to some, but that's the whole point of the CVT. The engine can be kept at its optimum RPM at all times. It increases efficiency drastically. Its because consumers "didn't like the sound" that carmakers made CVTs that acted like traditional automatics with only a few set ratios, defeating the purpose of having a CVT.

[@danigonzalez4299]

Then let's speak about the Lotus 88 double chassis car. Or the Brahbam BT46B

[@GranDaddo]

Williams with active suspension...

[@GranDaddo]

meh... how to respond to comment that FW14B and C iteration, not even mentioning 15C were "clonex slug Williams"?! Probably that person was looking for lubricant review for his romantic selfie moments and ended up on car channel. He is more "pushrod" purist, so let him be.

[@julianneale6128]

Wasn't that Lotus?

[@GranDaddo]

If yes, well that is a story I would like to hear (and learn).

[@danigonzalez4299]

Not even close

[@danigonzalez4299]

It was Lotus who started with the reactive suspension later named active suspension, back in mid 80's as also Williams used them in 86 and 87 somehow but decided to not keep them. Yeah, long way to learn. @@GranDaddo

[@davidconahan4659]

It was definitely a Steve Nichols car a think there’s so much more evidence to back his claim rather than Gordon my uncle worked for mclaren at the time and he’s always said that was Nichols and nxt years car was Niel oatley I think that’s how you say his name

[@peterstevens4012]

And of course David North worked on the gearbox, Murray brought him from Brabham.

[@tacheovale]

Would love to see McLaren and Williams back at the front of the grid fighting it out for wins. Alas, don't think it'll happen any time soon. Especially in the case of Williams. 😔

[@philplace484]

The BT55 was a dog. If the MP4/4 came out of that design I will eat my hat.

[@krrk6337]

Osamu Goto is the unsung hero here. Ask Ferrari if he is.

[@samuelszabo4459]

Maybe Tyrrell P34. That'd be intresting

[@Rainman...]

Yep P34...boom

[@OsellaSquadraCorse]

And another car with a disputed design history! Derek Gardner predominantly says it was about grip, not aero (as the frontal area of the rear tyres, and therefore the biggest drag contributor never changed - and the '77 version stuck the fronts out in the airflow); further to this it was about lift reduction (same reason we now see such complex outwash front wing elements) from the front tyres. One of the best stories I've seen is, unexpectedly, from F1's own website(!): www.formula1.com/en/latest/features/2016/6/six-fascinating-facts-tyrrell-P34

[@MDDeGrande1994]

And Brabham BT46B

[@captainchau]

Seriously, I like this better than any of the other videos. You guys have hit on something here.

[@hodgheg]

Gordon Murray's approach was always innovative; I read somewhere that when they decided to start using carbon fibre they needed an 'autoclave' costing £500k to cook the carbon fibre parts under pressure. Murray realised that an industrial boiler would do exactly the same thing and bought one - for £30k.

[@NoOne-le2jv]

He did a similar thing with tyres warmers as well I think where in the early days they roasted them like a chicken!

[@psk5746]

Just to be clear Barnard bought carbon fibre to f1 for the chassis

[@gdogg3710]

This has all kicked off again after the Jay Emms video where Steve Nichols is interviewed and said GM had zero input on the MP4/4…reading between the lines from everything Steve and Gordon have said on the matter, Gordon probably came in and told Ron, Honda, Marlboro etc that McLaren were going to build a low line car… …the design team, who had only just breathed a sigh of relief at getting rid of Barnard really didn’t want Murray there at all and by the sounds of it had pretty much come to the same conclusion as Murray, but independently. Also, whereas Murray was looking at it as a philosophy and unfinished business from the BT55, Steve was just thinking of it as the logical outcome from all the ingredients available… …then people being people, Gordon saw his input as being key, ignoring that Steve designed the car and he didn’t. Meanwhile Steve saw his input as being key and ignores the work Gordon did on the the original concept with Brabham, the gearbox work and the engine development. The MP4/4 is in summary a Murray concept that Nichols copied and made much much better, to which Gordon also chipped in with some key development work…

[@Obi-WanKannabis]

A reasonable take and also my own. Some people are just taking Steve Nichols' personal side with full trust when that is just the same error as people did when just taking GM's side. It's pretty obvious that most of the team seems to take Steve Nichol's side, and I definitely think it's extremely petty for Gordon Murray to threaten legal action over something that is evidently work of both.

[@gdogg3710]

@@Obi-WanKannabis Gordon doesn’t want to admit that Steve did a much better job with his concept that he did…and Steve doesn’t want to admit that it wasn’t his original idea to begin with…however, to give a comparable example, Williams weren’t the first people to run an active ride system of sorts in F1, yet no one says they owe their success to Lotus…so if I had to choose who I thought had a better claim on being the creator of the MP4/4, I would go with Nichols as he actually designed it…

[@Obi-WanKannabis]

@@gdogg3710 Well, its also true that McLaren had more resources back then, and they had the Honda engine which was made specifically for this job, who is to say what GM could've done. Plenty of concepts are bad at first and then come good, the BT55 had a problem with the engine not working at the tilt. Also they were with their backs against the wall and slipping back.

[@gdogg3710]

@@Obi-WanKannabis Yes, would agree with all of that…still, people are people and I know from my own work, that even if all the above caveats stood, I’d still be quite annoyed if someone else completed my finest hour on my behalf…

[@NoOne-le2jv]

@@Obi-WanKannabis That's what I've always thought with the BT55 concept being focused on the aero. By tilting the BMW engine over it screwed the weight balance and then there was the fact that the engine was installed in car on a cradle meaning it wasn't a stressed part of the car, with the drive being offset, all of which could be done and improved with the Honda unit. As other people have said. It seems as if Nichols saw how the BT55 could work with the correct components and a decent budget, both of which Brabham didn't have.

[@stockvlogs3559]

Hands down my favourite car in formula 1 🙌

[@ThePerpetualStudent]

She is a beauty! I think mine is the Lotus Camel 101.

[@cbr3220]

u sure? it was woefully slow and unreliable compared to the mclaren mp4/4 and other dominant cars

[@stockvlogs3559]

@@cbr3220 even if it wasn't fast I love the way the car looks

[@cbr3220]

true... people also do admire the jordan 191 for its looks and not its performance

[@SmallBlogV8]

The same sort of phenomenon happens with road cars too; one designer (Marcello Gandini, Giorgetto Gigiaro, etc.), typically but not always the most senior design person in the company, will be credited with 'designing' the car, but factually they led a team of people who all put it together piece by piece, idea by idea, throughout the design development. Even if the initial idea or seminal sketch did come from a particular person. It's never one person's work.

[@peterstevens4012]

One could say the same about the McLaren F1 road car!

[@supertouring22]

Jordan 191 - by far the best looking f1 car ever and designed by only a handful of people at the newly formed Jordan F1 team.

[@Bfoxfield1]

I agree totally. When i first saw that car my jaw dropped. It is visual perfection from every angle and a true masterpiece in design.

[@d1want34]

Williams FW14b is my favourite livery of all time

[@lukasgarage956]

Absolutely my favourite F1 car

[@paulroberts4751]

Take a look at the lotus 77 for gorgeous

[@paulcaswell2813]

The Lotus 72D (JPS) IMO just edges the MP4/4 as far as appearance is concerned. Ligier JS11 wasn't far off either ;-)

[@SS454LS6]

so many good comments. The 98T, FW15C, F2002, F2004, BGP 001. Any of these would be great, but I hope to see a video on all of them.

[@rip4273]

Steve Nichols is the designer of the MP4/4. JayEmm on Cars video is spot on.

[@carig121]

Incredible design, tremendously simple and effective, no ugly airbox on top, or airducts everywhere, only the two side air intakes to feed the turbos and extract heat from radiators and intercoolers, just brilliant.

[@rms-vp6hf]

I don’t think the MP4/4 was just “something that came together”. Success in F1 doesn’t happen by accidental evolution. Much less so total dominance.

[@DH-911]

Thank you for this superb video!

[@iwantthemoonback1722]

Brilliant video-lovong the music too!!! 😂😂

[@johnjames01]

This is an excellent video. Content, music, style, the whole lot.

[@Shadowhitman03]

MP 4/20 or the Lotus 98T

[@nordimejia5790]

Yes, the MP4-20. My favorite F1 car.

[@aydankhaliq2967]

Lotus 98t because turbooooooo

[@Rossriders]

I know it's a smartarse answer but, my answer is simply ; Yes.

[@ciaronsmith4995]

The MP4/20 was only good because it suited Kimi Raikkonen perfectly. A great car, but so was the Renault R25, in low-speed. Montoya was average in that car. As were Wurz and DeLaRosa.

[@cbr3220]

why not both?

[@patmaher9435]

Would love to see one of these on the Jordan Ford 191, preferably with Gary Anderson explaining a lot of the design decisions.

[@laszlokaestner5766]

Anderson is on record as describing the 191 as "a jumped up F3000 car"!

[@patmaher9435]

@@laszlokaestner5766 yeah but I'd love to know how they went about that with such a small team and how they made it so effective, no other small team since was so competitive in their first year (ok Brawn but that was a buyout rather than a ground up operation).

[@arturomarquez8803]

MP4 y el maestro Senna 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽

[@zildog]

There are three cars that immediately sprang to mind when thinking of truly legendary machines. The MP4/4 of course but also the F2002 and the FW14B. No other cars in F1 history have kicked so much ass in my 32 years of watching every single session of every single race on the calendar in the modern era.

[@Richardtv1968]

History and new documents proof Gordon Murray had barely anything to do with the MP 4-4, especially the letter from some 12 engineers proved that. By the way, the Brabham BT 55 was a dreadfully bad car. Drivers hated it

[@69memnon69]

Drivers hated the mp 4/3 too and Neweys FW16 killed Senna. Not every F1 car is perfect.

Extremely well done and informative. Tremendous. Thank you.

[@Tuppoo94]

3:22 In the 80's fuel was measured in litres.

[@OzarkW1]

It's Europe, they still use the metric system and measure in litres.

[@Tuppoo94]

@@OzarkW1 Most of the world uses litres. The reason why this is important here, is that the litre is a unit of volume, and volume changes with temperature. This is why these days fuel is measures in kilograms, because the mass of the fuel doesn't change with temperature.

[@OzarkW1]

@@Tuppoo94 yes, I'm aware, but the question about litres in the 80's was funny to me. Many Americans have no concept of the metric system. Regardless of how they measure the fuel, it's going to behave the same with mass and temp. That's why I love vintage F1, it's the pure, precise nature between machine and man. Getting every wasted gram out of the car and drive fast. Traction control and driver aids have ruined the sport along with the fia. For a world wide sport, it just never really got as big in America as it did in other parts of the world, especially now. People don't realize how hard it is to drive the old cars, deal with the bone shaking lack of suspension and focus for 2 hours at 100 - 190 mph. Sorry, I'm just getting excited and I hate when people say, "they just drive a car, it's not hard or a sport." Obviously, they have no clue and I laugh. The engine is so advanced, the oil must be heated before putting in the engine, so it won't expand or contract after entry, just as you were talking about the fuel weight.

[@OzarkW1]

That's what makes F1 so great and only a few teams can master it and other teams come and go.

[@adancingdog]

Amazing video, nice job guys :D

[@teleplace2639]

Dominate Driver w/ A1 Car!" Credit goes to the drivers. 1st.) SENNA" 2nd) Prost

[@keithrichards4296]

They talk how if the cars raced by themselves. But 'the professor' vs 'the obstinate', the rivalry and competence of them were the absolute main ingredient for the dominance in the '88 season. *The most DOMINANT F1 CAR EVER SEEN is absolutely the FW14B* .

[@Cam-wr5nb]

Great video! More of these please!

[@JohannDaart]

Lotus 49 history would be great, because that's the car that's a father of them all...

[@DJShadesUK]

That is one beautifully detailed and textured 3D model!

[@joshuabell8000]

you will eventually have to make one for the ‘19 mercedes lol

[@skuastone9698]

They will try to avoid it lol

[@autumnleaf2976]

Too early, look at '20 Mercedes

[@AfonsodaMataSlam]

Outstanding. Please keep us up to date with the most dominant cars in F1 history. Next Schumacher era Ferraris, the Vettel era RBRs and current Mercedes hybrids.

[@mosca3289]

How about 1990 Tyrrell 019 next - first of the high nose cars.

[@paulcaswell2813]

Hate the high-nose cars. An æsthetic disaster.

[@valeriuok]

That was a Harvey Postlethwaite design, carried over from a Ferrari prototype, which never saw the track but was used in the Ferrari internal political machinations to undermine John Barnard's position.

[@paulcaswell2813]

Sounds about right for period :-(

[@filipborin555]

God bless Pescarolo. BTW you missed the part when the japanese gave their best engines to senna that seqson it would be nice to everybody know that fact

[@Syd-41]

The ultimate F1 car with the greatest sounding engine ever.

[@junienet]

V6 Turbo best sounding engine!

[@metaleirosincero6317]

scuttle06 No, V12 Ferrari

[@junienet]

@@metaleirosincero6317 congratulations, you are unreliable and very heavy

[@metaleirosincero6317]

scuttle06 watch it kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4TSi5yKrcmEr9k

[@madkhaliqfarhan]

@@junienet Better yet, call him a "truck"

[@nnoddy8161]

'66-67 Brabham-Repco. Amazing engineering using essentially a production car engine. Its dominance was only outdone by the Cossie DFV.

[@SATO_FD2R]

Ooh, a *_Honda_* Engine! 🥰

[@chrishamilton2559]

Wait till the v-tec kicks in!

[@Sandwich420]

If they would have lost all those years, they would have blamed Honda like they did for the 3 years they went with them recently. Look at them now. They can barely get into P2 in qualifying. So what now...blame Renault?...lol

[@TayebMC]

Mike Andrews give them another year, takes three years to get a competitive car. Look at ferrari

[@jaysss6636]

Mike Andrews they’re going to merc next year let’s see if that works

[@josephnus]

I really loved contents like this, in the future please make one for Mercedes-Benz W196, Lotus 49, Lotus 72, and Ferrari 312-series. Those are also some classic revolutionary F1 cars

[@DursunX]

that was 27 minutes worth of info in 8... 👏👍

[@theamalgamut8871]

The rendering is amazing!

[@BubuBarong]

How many are here after JayEmm's video? LOL

[@RichardHartley65]

I am. Although I first watched this 3 years ago. Interestingly enough, back in 1988, contemporary accounts state that Nichols was the designer with 100% responsibility for decisions about the MP4/4. It seems that the story has morphed over many years.

[@MartiniPinball]

Steve Nichols and many others, and NOT Murray as many believe.

[@mackross]

amazing music at the end, anyone know the name?

[@tomupchurch4911]

Give Nichols and Murray the same Technical problem a slide rule a pencil & start the watch Nichols will win.

[@LordLaavineshNithianandan]

Driven by The G.O.A.T 🔥SENNA🔥

[@catm4403]

G.O.A.T. was a certain German named M.Schumacher.

[@nagesemagify]

@@catm4403 That is strange because the Schumacher himself said Senna was the G.O.A.T.

[@theuniversewithin2065]

@@catm4403 Senna is 🐐. Period. He raced in a true era, with brutal monster cars. No doubt Schumacher is a legend, but Senna was a pure racer, with pure cars.

[@madkhaliqfarhan]

It's official! Red Bull RB19 has officially dethroned McLaren MP4/4!

[@Molonlabe07]

Brawn BGP 001

[@Molonlabe07]

I know that but it was a Cinderella team nobody thought could win

[@madkhaliqfarhan]

@MemeSchool 17... 2009 have just 17 races!

[@madkhaliqfarhan]

@@Molonlabe07 I like the car but not the livery though...

[@pher38]

Brilliant video guys. I would actually like to see videos on F1 car flops like the MasterCard Lola because information about these cars is nearly always mixed and contradictory. Worth getting to the bottom of

[@aldoe2975]

sounds like gordon murray was the man

[@truantray]

Look at the earlier Brabhams, it was a logical progression.

[@solos1988]

Murray's role was more managerial/bureaucratic. Before the design of the MP4/4, Murray told the McLaren engineers that he had been hired to observe how McLaren "worked as an organization, not to design cars", "he stressed to us that he wasn't here to design cars", and, true to his word, "He was very hands-off". - Matthew Jeffreys, Design Engineer, McLaren MP4/4

[@solos1988]

​@@truantray McLaren only had six months to design and build the MP4/4, so it is almost an exact copy of the MP4/3 with the improvements they had time to include, scaled down to fit the new engines (that Honda had already been working on for some time - before they left Williams), and the smaller fuel cells dictated by the FIA for 1988. Nichols simply fit the driver within the profile of the available components in the MP4/4 - the same as he had done with the MP4/3 - and the same as any other designer would have done.

[@colintamiya]

What about: Tyrrell P34 (6 wheels!), Lotus 25 (first monocoque), Lotus 49 (first using the engine as a fully stressed part of the chassis), Lotus 56B (F1's only turbine car), Lotus 72 (inboard front brake discs, wedge shape due to putting the radiators beside the driver and not at the front of the car, Colin Chapman or Maurice Philippe), Lotus 78/79 (first ground effect car, CC or Peter Wright), Lotus 99T (first car with active suspension), Lotus 88 (twin-chassis car and first to use carbon chassis), McLaren MP4/1 (also first carbon chassis),

[@leonardoaraujo7179]

Senna gave the soul for this car, becoming MP 4/4 the legendary car.

[@NexuJin]

I like these short but very focus story telling videos! More please! Also do videos about development/evolutions of tracks.

[@IanParker]

Great video... Lotus 79

[@fabiopedrola8201]

Very interesting video, I had absolutely no idea about these backstories. Thank you very much for your job 😁