GMA GMA T.50


GMA is a British maker founded in 2017 by Gordon Murray. It builds analog, V12-powered hypercars like the T.50 and T.33. Official: GMA
I love this style of videos so much! There's nothing like it today. From the camera angles and overall aesthetics, to music and text overlays... Everything has an added artistic value to it. There's a sense of reverence for the cars and for their craft in every frame.
 
Yeah, there's
Imagine the japanese magazine Best Motoring doing a 5-lap battle around Tsukuba with T50, Valkyrie, AMG One 1.6, Evija….. or maybe better around Suzuka…..

Yeah, there's a lot of interesting unobtanium-caliber cars right now with different philosophies behind them, that I would love to see get group tested and explored by these legendary drivers. They could crowdfund it and film it at that new supercar resort - Magarigawa Club. But Tsukuba always works too :D
 
Yeah, there's


Yeah, there's a lot of interesting unobtanium-caliber cars right now with different philosophies behind them, that I would love to see get group tested and explored by these legendary drivers. They could crowdfund it and film it at that new supercar resort - Magarigawa Club. But Tsukuba always works too :D
The Evija will surprise people.🙂
 
The Evija will surprise people.🙂
Evija vs Nevera vs Aspark Owl is the test to make. A bit like the holy trinity of EV hypercars. But it might just turn people off of this type of cars, since you can't convey physical forces in play during acceleration through the screen as much without the accompanying engine sound.
 
Evija vs Nevera vs Aspark Owl is the test to make. A bit like the holy trinity of EV hypercars. But it might just turn people off of this type of cars, since you can't convey physical forces in play during acceleration through the screen as much without the accompanying engine sound.
Battista instead of Nevera.🙂
 
Fair enough.
BTW, are you that into the car, that you've named your account this? Or, have you had this account prior to the announcement of Pininfarina Battista ?
The name has multiple meanings, one angle, obviously is out of respect for Battista himself. They never got the credit they deserved. They will now.
 
GMA T.50 Makes A Mockery Of Koenigsegg Jesko's Record-Breaking Engine!

Sorry, Koenigsegg, but a turbocharged V8 simply can't beat a naturally aspirated V12.

The world has a new record for the fastest-revving engine, and it's being claimed by the Gordon Murray Automotive T.50 and its highly-strung 3.9-liter naturally aspirated Cosworth V12. Top Gear has been closely following the development of the GMA hypercar since its inception, and in the video below, GMA chief engineer Nik Hoyle reveals that, like the output, the current rev speed is far beyond what was initially measured.
Initially, the engine was said to be able to gain speed at an average of 28,400 rpm per second, but now that development is complete, the final figure is a scarcely believable 52,000 rpm a second. That means the engine could effectively go from idle to its 12,100 rpm redline in less than a quarter of a second.

How did that figure change so drastically, and how far back is the competition?

1700622299198.jpg


You may remember that roughly two years ago, Koenigsegg claimed the title of the world's fastest-revving production engine with the twin-turbo V8 in the Jesko. Thanks to nearly nonexistent inertia from the lack of a flywheel (the GMA T.50 also lacks a flywheel), the 5.0-liter V8 can rev from idle to its 7,800 rpm redline in just 213 milliseconds. In roughly the same timeframe (give or take a thousandth of a second), the T.50 has found another 4,300 rpm.

To put those figures in perspective, the Lexus LFA, which had to use a digital tachometer because a physical needle couldn't swing fast enough to match the Yamaha-tuned V10's speed, would rev from 900 to 9,000 rpm in 0.6 seconds, a speed of roughly 13,500 rpm/s. The T.50's V12 revs nearly four times faster.

Koenigsegg's figure translated to an average of 31,700 rpm/s in neutral, but under load, Angelholm's engineers recorded peaks of up to 46,000 revolutions a second. Perhaps GMA's initial measurement of the Cosworth V12 was also recorded in neutral, which would explain the sudden jump in recorded speed.


1700622367344.jpg


Only 100 units of the regular T.50 will be made, and the above video will likely be the only one where non-GMA employees are driving a pre-production prototype, so we highly recommend watching it with the volume all the way up to take in all that aural drama (and to see the doors and engine covers unfurl in unison).
Another century of T.50s Niki Lauda track-only supercars will be produced, and based on initial audio clips, it seems this will sound even better than the regular car. Perhaps it will break the record once again, too.

The T.50 proves that you don't need insane horsepower or overt styling to create a masterpiece, and more importantly, if you obsess over the details, you create a product that exceeds your wildest expectations. We hope other automakers - in and outside the hypercar realm - take notes."


That's Cosworth.🙂
 
Weird how GM went from initially comparing this to a 2020 Rebellion R13 LMP1 (better power to weight but less downforce) to now saying it's up there with GT1 category in terms of lap times.
I feel like he's tempering the expectations somewhat.
Anyway, it's really cool update!
 
Weird how GM went from initially comparing this to a 2020 Rebellion R13 LMP1 (better power to weight but less downforce) to now saying it's up there with GT1 category in terms of lap times.
I feel like he's tempering the expectations somewhat.
Anyway, it's really cool update!

Right, that's what I was surprised with too. Lap times are not everything but I would hope that a modern track only car like this with a price over 3 million pounds would be faster than 90s GT1 class/F1 GTR...

It's also cool that they are making a kit to increase the downforce to 1500 kg. I have been wondering for a couple of months now why they decreased downforce to 1200 kg and if it was possible to increase it if you wanted to as a customer.

I also found it interesting that he tried carbon carbon brakes on the regular T.50. Obviously not feasible for the reasons he listed.
 
Right, that's what I was surprised with too. Lap times are not everything but I would hope that a modern track only car like this with a price over 3 million pounds would be faster than 90s GT1 class/F1 GTR...

It's also cool that they are making a kit to increase the downforce to 1500 kg. I have been wondering for a couple of months now why they decreased downforce to 1200 kg and if it was possible to increase it if you wanted to as a customer.

I also found it interesting that he tried carbon carbon brakes on the regular T.50. Obviously not feasible for the reasons he listed.
It's a bit confusing the way they put it, but he is talking about trying C-C brakes on the Mclaren F1, not the T.50.

With regards to lap time, I mean, yeah, the car was never gonna compete with LMP1. It was always a bit disingenuous for them to try to compare it to that. I guess they realized it wasn't the best idea to talk about lap times with so many crazy track cars coming, like the AMR Pro, the RB17, the Rodin FZero, Solus, etc, etc. Still, the old GT1 class is still faster than current GT3, so being faster than that is not that bad. If at all true, of course. All they have now are simulations and those have historically been incredibly optimistic.
 
I have been wondering for a couple of months now why they decreased downforce to 1200 kg and if it was possible to increase it if you wanted to as a customer.
The way GM describes that change in this video is a bit misleading. It makes it seem like they changed/redesigned the aero elements to make the car more approachable for the average driver.

But AFAIK, the car stayed the same. To alleviate the peak stress acting upon the tires, they just lowered the top speed from about 355 to 300 kph and so, as a result, the peak downforce went down with it. But both downforce claims are one and the same:

1,500 kg @ 335 kph = 835 kg @ 250 kph
1,200 kg @ 300 kph = 833 kg @ 250 kph

It's only this new optional HDF package that actually changes things:
1,500 kg @ 300 kph = 1,042 kg @ 250 kph

If at all true, of course. All they have now are simulations and those have historically been incredibly optimistic.
I think the quoted 2.6 lateral G at simulated Spa-Francorchamps for a T.50s equipped with the high downforce package is actually pretty conservative.
I'm guessing they recorded that stat in the Blanchimont corner. For context: GT3 race cars pull ~2.0 G there at about 250 kph and Toyota GR010 LMH about 3.0 G at 298 kph.

Let's say that T.50s hits 275 kph through there (right in the middle between those two). If my basic calculations are right, the standard car, at that speed, should be capable of at least 2.5 G and the HDF one of 2.8 G!

Think of it this way... taking the tire compound difference aside, T.50s HDF package has the same potential level of cornering capability as a 2017 Porsche 919 Hybrid set up for Le Mans.
 
I think the quoted 2.6 lateral G at simulated Spa-Francorchamps for a T.50s equipped with the high downforce package is actually pretty conservative.
I'm guessing they recorded that stat in the Blanchimont corner. For context: GT3 race cars pull ~2.0 G there at about 250 kph and Toyota GR010 LMH about 3.0 G at 298 kph.

Let's say that T.50s hits 275 kph through there (right in the middle between those two). If my basic calculations are right, the standard car, at that speed, should be capable of at least 2.5 G and the HDF one of 2.8 G!

Think of it this way... taking the tire compound difference aside, T.50s HDF package has the same potential level of cornering capability as a 2017 Porsche 919 Hybrid set up for Le Mans.
I would caution against thinking that theory is a good match with practice in this case. When a manufacturer gives you a downforce number (even if it's true), it's gonna be under optimal conditions where there are no flow separations (this changes with temperature and humidity and such), it's gonna be in straight line, not while cornering when many surfaces start working differently, it's gonna be with no wind, etc. Similarly, when they are talking about possible cornering forces, they are probably calculating in tire friction coefficient as it is at zero load, not when the tire is loaded with all the downforce and the coefficient drops - because how much the coefficient drops is quite hard to calculate and you pretty much have to go measure it in real life to get a good idea.

So yeah, maybe 2.6G or 2.8G or whatever seems completely logical in theory, but there has a been a long history of cars falling short of their theoretical numbers in real life. LMP1 cars at their peak were theoretically capable of something like 5.5G cornering, but in reality it was about 4G. The Valkyrie AMR Pro should, in theory, be capable of at least 4G cornering (assuming 1100kg weight with driver, 2400kg - as quoted - at 250km/h, and 1.3 coef tires), but at Silverstone the highest sustained was 2.5G.

Lap simulations are similarly questionable because they likely rely on the same on paper numbers to get the result. I guess this depends on how sophisticated the simulator is - some are very simple where, knowing the car's weight, power, downforce, tires, you simply calculate all the straights where you accelerate and brake, and then you add all the bits where you corner and that gives you lap time. Some are more like a racing sim game (or are literally that) where you have to actually drive the car, but still, even assuming it can actually model the car and the car's behavior realistically, you are still working under perfect conditions where the engine always makes the most power, the downforce is always at it's best, tires are always in optimal condition and temperature, the conditions never change and you can do 1000 laps at 100% without the fear of crashing, to get the magical lap time number you want. So that's not gonna be very realistic either. You also need to remember that in real life the lap time is not just the result of how quickly you can corner. Transitions between corners, how quickly you can start turning into the corner, etc, etc, play a role, and even more than that, the driver confidence plays a huge role (you can see this really well in hill climbing especially) and a car that has higher downforce and on paper numbers will absolutely be slower than a car with lesser downforce, but that's less spiky, more predictable and easier to drive.

Now, maybe GMA are all aware of that and are very realistic with what data they input and with the result they get, which might account for all that. But, that would be the exception rather than the rule.
 
The stats are pretty impressive, and it looks the part as well. 772HP and 890kg with 1200kg downforce that can be increased to 1500kg if required.
 

Trending content


Back
Top