Gordon Murray's T.25 / T.27 City Cars & Teewave AR.1 Electric Sports Car

[niky]

Why do we even need to tow city cars? They're so tiny you can just push them.

The point is, the van is your main car. The T25 is the range extender.

 

[Neal]

Thanks for posting the 5th Gear vid EvilNeal, I've only just seen the episode the other day and it's really made me enthusiastic about the car. Obviously it'll have it's limitations, but it seems like a very clever little machine to me.

Providing all goes to plan in the next few years, for both myself and Murray, I'd be very tempted indeed to actually put my name down on the waiting list for one and have one of the first T25s in the country. I'll never own a McLaren, so next best thing perhaps

I must admit I'd be tempted myself to have one as a commuter car to a larger second family car. There's always the option of just renting a bigger car when you need it but at the moment I'd need the space too often for it to be viable. I like the idea of the electric version with a range of approx 100 miles as this would be perfect for a daily commute, I've seen an article recently for a wireless eclectic car charging pad that you place on the ground and park over to charge up which would make it even more convenient to live with.

My wife did point out a flaw in the 3 seat design I hadn't thought about which is you can't get 2 adults and 2 kids in child seats in it which you can in the Toyota iQ, not relevant to everyone but it is quite a common scenario.

Or the perfect way to create a new post-economic downturn and eco-friendly version of Knightrider on a shoe-string budget.....or perhaps not.

Or another idea could be Russian dolls A-Team vans

 

[ExigeEvan]

Why do we even need to tow city cars? They're so tiny you can just push them.

It's usually by people with large motorhomes. Means you can set up camp and use the city car for getting about.

 

[homeforsummer]

I must admit I'd be tempted myself to have one as a commuter car to a larger second family car. There's always the option of just renting a bigger car when you need it but at the moment I'd need the space too often for it to be viable.

This is definitely the route I'd take. I'd happily have something like my MX5 for weekends and a T25/T27 during the week, and should I need anything bigger, rent it on the odd occasion.

From what I've read on Murray's website, the two rear seats are apparently easily big enough for adults, and when folded there's 700-odd litres of space which is pretty respectable. Either way, it sounds like it'd easily meet my needs - I've not missed having the extra seats of my old car, and I can fit a week's shopping for two in the back of the MX5, so the T25 would be more than enough.

I like the idea of the electric version with a range of approx 100 miles as this would be perfect for a daily commute, I've seen an article recently for a wireless eclectic car charging pad that you place on the ground and park over to charge up which would make it even more convenient to live with.

I'd like the electric version too, but as a T25 would be my main car then I'll actually admit for once that a 100 mile range probably wouldn't be enough for me. Normally in such a small car, I would go for the electric version but probably not with the T25.

My wife did point out a flaw in the 3 seat design I hadn't thought about which is you can't get 2 adults and 2 kids in child seats in it which you can in the Toyota iQ, not relevant to everyone but it is quite a common scenario.

Yeah, that is an issue for families, but I suspect even the iQ which would suite the scenario probably isn't often used as a family car - I rarely see them with more than a single person in.

In the UK, the T25 has quite a good potential market I reckon - the Smart ForTwo seems to be less practical and there are plenty of them about - and the T25 should be cheaper, Murray seems to want a circa £6k price tag.

 

[Neal]

I'd like the electric version too, but as a T25 would be my main car then I'll actually admit for once that a 100 mile range probably wouldn't be enough for me. Normally in such a small car, I would go for the electric version but probably not with the T25.

I'm sure in a few years time battery technology will allow a 200 mile range for a car like this but recharging time is the real issue if you planned to use it as your main car. I've mentioned before that carbon nanotube supercapacitors could solve pretty much all of the problems with electric vehicles but they are a long way off a practical application.

Yeah, that is an issue for families, but I suspect even the iQ which would suite the scenario probably isn't often used as a family car - I rarely see them with more than a single person in.

In the UK, the T25 has quite a good potential market I reckon - the Smart ForTwo seems to be less practical and there are plenty of them about - and the T25 should be cheaper, Murray seems to want a circa £6k price tag.

True, I doubt any car this small would be a main family car, you only have to look at the majority of mummy mobiles to see small MPV's are the norm. The point I was making to my wife was you can't get 4 normal people with legs in a Toyota iQ but you can definitely get 3 normal be-legged people in the T25 so it's more practical in most situations and much more practical than the Smart Fourtwo whilst having a smaller footprint.

It'll be a great shame if this doesn't make it into production in significant numbers but I reckon it looks different enough to stand out from the crowd so just needs the right partner/buyer and marketing campaign.

 

[GT_Prologue5]

It's usually by people with large motorhomes. Means you can set up camp and use the city car for getting about.

Wow that's a great idea. Never thought of it.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'm sure in a few years time battery technology will allow a 200 mile range for a car like this but recharging time is the real issue if you planned to use it as your main car. I've mentioned before that carbon nanotube supercapacitors could solve pretty much all of the problems with electric vehicles but they are a long way off a practical application.

Even recharging won't really be a problem. Funny you mention it as I was in a phone press conference today about EV networks and for fast chargers, the kind that'll be out and about so you can extend your journeys in the same way a normal petrol station does, can offer up to 80% charges in as little as 15 minutes. And I reckon the average petrol station visit isn't too far short of 10-15 minutes anyway, and can be a lot more if it's busy.

For slower chargers, recharge time doesn't make a blind bit of difference as it'll be on charge overnight and 100% full by the time you wake up in the morning. Indeed, I think I could put up with spending 30 mins charging "on the road" given that for many people it'd likely be the first time they'd charged away from home in months, given the short journeys most people do.

I dunno, perhaps I would consider the electric T27 over the petrol T25. At the end of the day, the electric car is future-proof...

I'm as excited as you over carbon nanotube batteries though. Needs refining, but could be the next big thing, and carbon is utterly abundant - not a finite resource like most minerals. Or oil.

True, I doubt any car this small would be a main family car, you only have to look at the majority of mummy mobiles to see small MPV's are the norm. The point I was making to my wife was you can't get 4 normal people with legs in a Toyota iQ but you can definitely get 3 normal be-legged people in the T25 so it's more practical in most situations and much more practical than the Smart Fourtwo whilst having a smaller footprint.

It'll be a great shame if this doesn't make it into production in significant numbers but I reckon it looks different enough to stand out from the crowd so just needs the right partner/buyer and marketing campaign.

I agree. I think Murray is onto something though and apparently he has a number of companies, both automotive and non-automotive interested in the concept.

One of the points that stood out in VBH's 5th Gear report was that the factories are so small that conceivably some dealerships could produce the cars on site. That's unheard of in a production car - only tiny-volume kit car makers come close, and even then you generally have to go to their factory to pick a car up, rather than the factory being just at the top of your road.

Incidentally, I like both the Smart and the iQ, and I know Murray himself is a fan of the Smart, which is why I'd be confident he's produced a better small car, being aware of the Smart's many limitations.

 

[Neal]

Even recharging won't really be a problem. Funny you mention it as I was in a phone press conference today about EV networks and for fast chargers, the kind that'll be out and about so you can extend your journeys in the same way a normal petrol station does, can offer up to 80% charges in as little as 15 minutes. And I reckon the average petrol station visit isn't too far short of 10-15 minutes anyway, and can be a lot more if it's busy.

Proper journo now 👍 What kind of battery technology are they able to charge to 80% in 15 minutes? I know NiMH can be charged at pretty high rates (such as RC car battery chargers) but it is best for long term battery life to charge them at 0.5C to 1C (C = battery capacity in Amps) which therefore takes approx 1 - 2 hours. Li-Po batteries can't be charged at high currents as far as I know. In fact do any EV's use Li-Po batteries?

For slower chargers, recharge time doesn't make a blind bit of difference as it'll be on charge overnight and 100% full by the time you wake up in the morning. Indeed, I think I could put up with spending 30 mins charging "on the road" given that for many people it'd likely be the first time they'd charged away from home in months, given the short journeys most people do.

Good point about slow chargers, done at home overnight so not an issue.

I think it would be a good idea to make the most of the relative ease and safety of distributing electricity (underground cables with no risk of flammable liquids) over petroleum fuels and have credit/debit card operated charge points at parking spaces in car parks, service stations, super markets etc rather than just use filling stations. That way the 30ish minute charge time isn't inconvenient at all.

I dunno, perhaps I would consider the electric T27 over the petrol T25. At the end of the day, the electric car is future-proof...

As long as it was fun...which the T25/T27 is meant to be.

I'm as excited as you over carbon nanotube batteries though. Needs refining, but could be the next big thing, and carbon is utterly abundant - not a finite resource like most minerals. Or oil.

I keep seeing stories pop up about what MIT or some other boffins have done with the stuff recently and it really is amazing but it's seems to be at the labs stage for now but it will progress. What I'm looking forward to is an EV with the structure and body made of a composite using carbon nanotube material as the reinforcement instead of carbon fibre and also as the supercapacity "battery".

I agree. I think Murray is onto something though and apparently he has a number of companies, both automotive and non-automotive interested in the concept.

One of the points that stood out in VBH's 5th Gear report was that the factories are so small that conceivably some dealerships could produce the cars on site. That's unheard of in a production car - only tiny-volume kit car makers come close, and even then you generally have to go to their factory to pick a car up, rather than the factory being just at the top of your road.

Incidentally, I like both the Smart and the iQ, and I know Murray himself is a fan of the Smart, which is why I'd be confident he's produced a better small car, being aware of the Smart's many limitations.

It was a very interesting point of the VBH interview and would have many benefits such as spreading the workforce across the country. It would certainly open up a lot of companies to producing cars who would never have done so normally.

 

[homeforsummer]

Proper journo now 👍

Getting there

What kind of battery technology are they able to charge to 80% in 15 minutes? I know NiMH can be charged at pretty high rates (such as RC car battery chargers) but it is best for long term battery life to charge them at 0.5C to 1C (C = battery capacity in Amps) which therefore takes approx 1 - 2 hours.

I'm guessing most current EVs - the Nissan Leaf is Li-Ion, as is the Tesla Roadster and the Mitsubishi i-MiEV, all of which are the upcoming big players (well, the Tesla is already there).

The Chevy Volt is Li-Ion too, but it doesn't have a fast-charge option. To be fair, it doesn't need one as it's a range-extended vehicle.

Most new and upcoming EVs are lithium-ion.

Li-Po batteries can't be charged at high currents as far as I know. In fact do any EV's use Li-Po batteries?

It doesn't appear so, though wikipedia reckons Hyundai's upcoming hybrids will use Li-Po batteries.

I think it would be a good idea to make the most of the relative ease and safety of distributing electricity (underground cables with no risk of flammable liquids) over petroleum fuels and have credit/debit card operated charge points at parking spaces in car parks, service stations, super markets etc rather than just use filling stations. That way the 30ish minute charge time isn't inconvenient at all.

Well quite, and it can even be beneficial in some ways, as it's recommended you stop every few hours for a stretch and a drink anyway to keep yourself alert. May as well set the car off charging while you do, rather than resting and then having to fill up if needs be.

As long as it was fun...which the T25/T27 is meant to be.

Apparently so. Looking forward to seeing the first tests of it. Heh, if I'm lucky, I might be doing one of the first tests by the time the car is ready

It was a very interesting point of the VBH interview and would have many benefits such as spreading the workforce across the country. It would certainly open up a lot of companies to producing cars who would never have done so normally.

Yeah, creation of jobs is never really a bad thing, and opening up production to non-automotive companies could be good from a competitive standpoint too. And locally-sourced produce is a big thing now, so having a low-emissions car producer right on your doorstep is pretty much as low polluting as car production can get.

 

[homeforsummer]

96mpg at Brighton-London eco rally​

Gordon Murray Design’s T.25 City Car won both its categories at Saturday’s inaugural Brighton to London Future Car Challenge. The Royal Automobile Club event was organised to be a very public showcase for low-energy vehicles and was open to all types of Production, Pre-Production and Prototype vehicles. With over 60 eco-friendly vehicles taking part, Gordon Murray Design chose the challenge to be T.25’s on-the-road debut.



Staged, promoted and judged in three categories – Electric, Hybrid and Internal Combustion Engine – the entries in each category were measured in various modes for the energy used during the journey from Madeira Drive, Brighton, to Pall Mall, London. The challenge was to complete the event with the least energy impact.

Out of all of the entrants only two represented lightweight as a route to efficiency, reduced consumption and emissions. One being the Lotus Elise S1 Electric which won Most Economic & Environment Friendly Sports EV and the other,T.25, won Most Economic Small Passenger ICE Vehicle and Most Economic and Environment Friendly Small Passenger ICE Vehicle.

Interestingly T.25 won using a petrol engine alongside the eight other entrants to the same categories who were using diesel engines. By using a sample of 16 small passenger cars Gordon Murray Design has calculated that there is an average efficiency increase of 27% for a diesel model over the equivalent petrol model. Therefore the lightweight philosophy of T.25, which achieved 96mpg (2.9litres per 100km) during the challenge, means had it been powered by diesel it could have recorded 131mpg (2.2litres per 100km)!

An additional factor to take in to account for the overall results is that T.25’s engine is yet to be fully optimised for fuel economy so a further efficiency benefit would be expected once in production.

Assisted in the challenge by the support of their Technical Partners – Shell and Michelin – the two wins are a victory for the principal of efficiency through lightweight and prove any future powertrain technology when combined with a safe, lightweight structure, as delivered by iStream®, Gordon Murray Design’s automotive manufacturing technology, will have a compounded environmental benefit.

Any of the class winners in Saturday’s event could have been significantly more efficient had they been underpinned with an iStream® structure.

Source: http://gordonmurraydesign.com/press.php

Interesting Murray talking about what a diesel-powered T25 could have done: 131mpg!

Still looking forward to seeing which companies are interested in producting the T25. There are apparently investors from all around the world interested in the project.

 

[Neal]

Nice one, good news for the T.25. Hopefully it won't be long before someone snaps it up and puts it on the road. Maybe this will help speed up the change in philosophy for car manufacturers to start building smaller and lighter cars with the emphasis on fun dynamics.

 

[Joker-GTBR]

Car and Driver (Brazilian) said a businessman is interested in produce this car in Brazil

 

[Vulcao]

That thing likes rollover, I guess .

 

[Louie_Schumii]

The car just passed the EEC crash test with no cabin intrusion at all. Hurray for F1 tech filtering through to a road car!

http://uk.autoblog.com/2011/01/19/gordon-murray-s-t-27-city-car-passes-crash-test/

 

[blaaah]

That was the electric only car, combustible fuel engines not yet tested.
This is a most ugly car I really do not like, and I love small cars.

 

[Robin]

I really dislike this car, its so damn ugly and tacky compared to the leaps and bounds mainstream manufacturers are making with EV's.

And it comes across as an arrogant endeavor, just because its made by 'the guy who did the mclaren F1'. You can see future owners telling everyone this fact . Without that bit it would just be another G-Wizz.

Robin.

 

[Neal]

The T.27 EV and T.25 IC engine both use the same platform so they will have very similar performance in crash tests therefore it's good news all round.

If you don't like the appearance I won't try to convince you otherwise as that is personal preference although I much prefer the look of this to other very small city cars. I will say that it is far more advanced than the G-Whizz which is a pretty basic car and a poor comparison. The advantages it has over other cars in cost, lightness, carbon footprint, dynamics, packaging etc have been stated before so I won't go over them again but I really think this design thinking should be admired and applauded and not overshadowed by the man behind it.

 

[blaaah]

Does crash testing only cover impact injuries? What if a car can get almost unscratched at 40mph, but with just the issue that it immediately bursts into flames and toxic fumes?

 

[Neal]

I'm not sure what your point is, are you inferring this car is more likely to suffer those problems over any other liquid fuel car? I think the fact that the main structure has remained intact would indicate it is be less likely to leak fuel in a crash.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Does crash testing only cover impact injuries? What if a car can get almost unscratched at 40mph, but with just the issue that it immediately bursts into flames and toxic fumes?

The biggest issue from this car is the lack of crumple zones, so whiplash and internal injuries are far more likely. But being a city car, and quite specific to that, it shouldn't see more than 30-40mph at best.

 

[homeforsummer]

Heh, just posted this story myself. Shameless plug time: Small Is Still Safe With Gordon Murray's iStream Technology

And it comes across as an arrogant endeavor, just because its made by 'the guy who did the mclaren F1'.

I disagree completely, and I think it's pretty arrogant of you to think that.

The moment anyone does anything genuinely different in the automotive world people immediately dismiss it as a folly. Sometimes car enthusiasts can be the most backwards-looking people. It's just as well the industry makes its own way forwards otherwise technology would never get anywhere.

It's not just about the T25/T27. It's about a production process that takes up a fifth the energy and space of a normal car, or shipping that can transport 20 body-in-whites where a normal container can take two cars, or a production process that can still produce a car that's safe despite using significantly less raw material.

Whether or not you find the car ugly is moot, since you need to look at it as a holistic concept.

The biggest issue from this car is the lack of crumple zones, so whiplash and internal injuries are far more likely. But being a city car, and quite specific to that, it shouldn't see more than 30-40mph at best.

If it's anything like the Smart ForTwo, it'll be designed to use the crumple zone of the other car in lieu of its own, and send impact forces around the driver.

 

[ExigeEvan]

If it's anything like the Smart ForTwo, it'll be designed to use the crumple zone of the other car in lieu of its own, and send impact forces around the driver.

It'll be exactly the same idea, but it's not the force that's the issue it is the rate of deceleration.

 

[homeforsummer]

A crumple zone is a crumple zone, whether you use your own or someone else's. Obviously if you crash into a tree then you don't benefit from this, but then it's easier to mitigate a car-tree interface than it is to make provisions for other drivers crashing into you.

Though again as you point out, as a city car it's unlikely to see crashes of too strong a force anyway.

We've still only had one death in a G-Wiz to date and I'd expect the T.25 to be much, much safer.

 

[ExigeEvan]

A crumple zone is a crumple zone, whether you use your own or someone else's. Obviously if you crash into a tree then you don't benefit from this, but then it's easier to mitigate a car-tree interface than it is to make provisions for other drivers crashing into you.

Yes, but you have to hit a car. Not a lorry, van, bus and obviously stationary objects.

I'm not against the design, and I'm not suggesting there's any solution in a car this size, but a car being hailed as safe because there are no incursions into the cabin is only half the story IMO.

 

[homeforsummer]

Lorries, vans, buses etc are less dangerous to hit than they used to be - all undergo impact tests, you just don't hear about them as you might a Euro NCAP test. I'm not saying I'd like to hit one in a T.25, but then if you're hitting something that big then inertia is likely to take over and you'll be punted rather than crunching.

I'm sure being punted isn't a nice experience but it's probably better than being squashed.

I do agree with you, but I also think it's not as bad as you make out

 

[Robin]

@ homeforsummer

I have no problem with people doing something different, I have a problem with this car being called the Gordon Murray T.25 City Car. Do you see the names of the guys behind other cars added to the title? No, because its obnoxious. However naming the whole company Murray for example would be entirely different.

I am sick of seeing people put there names to things, endorsements are so damn common these days and often they have had no input into the process whatsoever. I know this is not that case with the T.25 but you can bet that it wouldn't sell and wouldn't be featured so much if Gordon wasn't there to shift it. So its an Antony Worrall Thompson juicer!

Basically the way this can be solved is drop the Gordon Murray name. Let it be judged on its own merits without 'celebrity' needed to peddle its sales. Sure he can be involved but putting his name on it instantly puts me off.

Robin.

 

[TheCracker]

@ homeforsummer

I have no problem with people doing something different, I have a problem with this car being called the Gordon Murray T.25 City Car. Do you see the names of the guys behind other cars added to the title? No, because its obnoxious. However naming the whole company Murray for example would be entirely different.

I am sick of seeing people put there names to things, endorsements are so damn common these days and often they have had no input into the process whatsoever. I know this is not that case with the T.25 but you can bet that it wouldn't sell and wouldn't be featured so much if Gordon wasn't there to shift it. So its an Antony Worrall Thompson juicer!

Basically the way this can be solved is drop the Gordon Murray name. Let it be judged on its own merits without 'celebrity' needed to peddle its sales. Sure he can be involved but putting his name on it instantly puts me off.

Robin.

Ferrari? Lamborghini? Ford? Pagini? Bugatti? Mercedes-Benz? Massey Ferguson? John Deere? etc, etc?

It's hardly a vanity project to name the car company after your own name.

As far as i can see it's not even called the 'Gordon Murray T.25', it's either just the T.25 or the GMD T.25 if anything.

 

[Neal]

It's also worth noting that at the moment it is a design and manufacturing process with the aim of another company making it so it is highly likely Gordon Murray won't be featured in the name at all.

 

[homeforsummer]

@ homeforsummer

I have no problem with people doing something different, I have a problem with this car being called the Gordon Murray T.25 City Car. Do you see the names of the guys behind other cars added to the title? No, because its obnoxious. However naming the whole company Murray for example would be entirely different.

I am sick of seeing people put there names to things, endorsements are so damn common these days and often they have had no input into the process whatsoever. I know this is not that case with the T.25 but you can bet that it wouldn't sell and wouldn't be featured so much if Gordon wasn't there to shift it. So its an Antony Worrall Thompson juicer!

Basically the way this can be solved is drop the Gordon Murray name. Let it be judged on its own merits without 'celebrity' needed to peddle its sales. Sure he can be involved but putting his name on it instantly puts me off

I'm not quite sure how you're classing Murray as a "celebrity". Outside a reasonably geeky section of car enthusiasts I suspect he's completely unknown. Gordon Murray is no better known than Gordon Smith. Know who he is? Of course you don't, unless you own one of his excellent guitars like I do. But even then, I reckon a fair few guitar players haven't a clue who he is.

Not only that but the T.25 is only a concept. GMD will be licencing the concept and the manufacturing process to other companies, not producing it himself (edit: tree'd by Neal). So it'll be selling on the back of someone else's name, not his. And that's no different than any other manufacturer on the planet. An unknown could produce the Volkswagen Golf but without the Volkswagen badge, it wouldn't have anywhere near the success.

Companies like Virgin, Apple and Sony, have all been touted as possible buyers for the concept and process.

The concept car carries his name because the company that designed it and the iStream process is called Gordon Murray Design. So it makes sense for the car to be called the GMD T.25/T.27 as Cracker mentions, and he's well at rights to name his company Gordon Murray design because... well, it's his name and his designs...

 

[Robin]

It's hardly a vanity project to name the car company after your own name.

You didn't read my post properly...

However naming the whole company Murray for example would be entirely different.

I put that in just because I knew there would be one person who would say... "oh but all car companies are peoples names"! Wheres the guys name who actually designed, lets say, the Ferrari California? Why is the Mclaren F1 not called the Gordon Murray F1? Also use of a surname is very different to a full name because one is classy and one is arrogant (farm machinery excluded because its a different marketing mentality).

It's also worth noting that at the moment it is a design and manufacturing process with the aim of another company making it so it is highly likely Gordon Murray won't be featured in the name at all.

That's the way it should be, if its so revolutionary then it doesn't need names attached.

Not only that but the T.25 is only a concept. GMD will be licencing the concept and the manufacturing process to other companies, not producing it himself (edit: tree'd by Neal). So it'll be selling on the back of someone else's name, not his. And that's no different than any other manufacturer on the planet. An unknown could produce the Volkswagen Golf but without the Volkswagen badge, it wouldn't have anywhere near the success.

Companies like Virgin, Apple and Sony, have all been touted as possible buyers for the concept and process.

The concept car carries his name because the company that designed it and the iStream process is called Gordon Murray Design. So it makes sense for the car to be called the GMD T.25/T.27 as Cracker mentions, and he's well at rights to name his company Gordon Murray design because... well, it's his name and his designs...

This is all good news and exactly what I was making my point about. This car is getting so much press because of the 'Gordon Murray' bit and regardless of how I feel about it I think it would be much fairer that its detached from his name because it creates all sorts of silly expectations and bias (like its a baby F1 and going to be the best micro car ever etc..). Maybe if there wasn't some vein streak going on here he would have labeled it GMD.

Robin.