Steve Nichols Interview on the MP4/4

The place for anything and everything else to do with F1 history, different forms of motorsport, and all other randomness
Post Reply
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Steve Nichols Interview on the MP4/4

Post by mario »

I've seen a particularly interesting video which features an interview with Steve Nichols on the development of the McLaren MP4/4, which can be found here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Mz9nAzsLXU

As you might know, there were some arguments that flared up back in September when Murray alleged that others were taking away credit from him for the MP4/4, accusing individuals such as Nichols of "living off his reputation" on the matter (for a discussion on that, you can refer to https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... 4-4-claims).

On that basis, Nichols has now gone on record to present his side of the story - the video that I link to is the shorter version of his interview with James Elsom, but there is also a longer version available. What is interesting is that, as part of that video, they discuss the book that was written by Ian Bamsey about the MP4/4, which helped to form the public image of Murray and his association with the MP4/4.

However, it seems that a lot of McLaren personnel were angry that the book by Bamsey basically gave all the credit to Murray, as it seems that Bamsey based his book almost entirely off interviews with just Murray. In that video, James publishes the letter which was written in 1990 and co-signed by 15 McLaren personnel, where they undertook a thorough critique of Bamsey's article, with those staff pretty much demolishing the entire article that Bamsey wrote.

Now, as noted by Motorsport Magazine, one thing we have to be careful of is that both Murray and Nichols are, to different degrees, aiming to utilise their reputation as the originator of the MP4/4 to promote their new business ventures in the automotive world. Still, I do have to say that, when looking at the points that were raised by those McLaren staff in that letter, I am persuaded by their claims that Murray probably has been overselling his importance in developing the MP4/4.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
Row Man Gross-Gene
Posts: 751
Joined: 03 Jan 2010, 18:48
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Steve Nichols Interview on the MP4/4

Post by Row Man Gross-Gene »

I haven't watched yet, but I read the article and the video comments, but this is kind of interesting because Murray is the kind of figure that media outlets go to in order to get comments or to generate content through podcasts and interviews and such. He's a very respected person in that way. I've listened to multiple podcasts and such with him and he's an enjoyable person to listen to. A couple of things come to mind though, sort of two sides of the same coin.

First, he was the technical director (or equivalent). By definition he can claim to be responsible for the MP4/4. There is absolutely no dishonor in being the person in charge.

Second, he was the technical director. Of course he wasn't putting pen to paper 8 hours a day, it's a managerial position. Maybe back then technical directors still drew cars and wings and stuff, but probably not (at least at a large team like McLaren).

It's weird that Murray would choose this hill to die on. I'd bet the majority of the buyers for the T.50 don't really give much of a shite about this stuff, so its not helping much. Probably more of Nichols' buyers would care though.

I'll watch the video this evening and hopefully comment a bit more. I must also say, I have the back issues of Motor Sport on my shelf, but I haven't read them yet, I'll have to make time so I can read the Murray interview and the McLaren staff letter in detail.
It's just unbelievable...that Formula 1 could be such a ridiculous melange of idiots.

-Jamie McGregor

Check out my colo(u)ring pages website: http://sites.google.com/site/carcoloringpages/
User avatar
Row Man Gross-Gene
Posts: 751
Joined: 03 Jan 2010, 18:48
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Steve Nichols Interview on the MP4/4

Post by Row Man Gross-Gene »

In the video, Nichols gives some stick to Ian Bamsey who wrote the early book on the MP4/4. Additionally, after the video came out, Bamsey replied to the maker of the video and the response was added to the description. Basically Bamsey says that he didn't lie or make anything up and that he accurately reported what Murray said. In standard "hard" journalism that wouldn't really be any defense. But since it was a niche book about a racecar, I can see why the publisher didn't pursue it further than interviewing Murray and Honda man Goto. That doesn't make it right, and the result was obviously some hurt on the part of Nichols and the other McLaren designers and a general muddying of the public record. Even so, Murray is certainly the primary culprit rather than Bamsey.

I guess I've got to read Murray's recent interview yet to get his side, but with the Haynes manual out as basically the publication of record now for the MP4/4, Murray hasn't really got a leg to stand on.

All that said, I've been listening to some podcasts about the fallibility of human memory (even very soon after something occurs) and this kind of thing isn't too surprising. (The podcast was Revisionist History by Malcolm Gladwell, I think in season 3, but maybe not) Murray may well have honestly believed he did the design, though hopefully when shown evidence to the contrary one would hope he'd admit he was mistaken.

And where were Ron Dennis and Martin Whitmarsh in all this? Presumably Bamsey's publisher ran it by at least one of them before going to press.
It's just unbelievable...that Formula 1 could be such a ridiculous melange of idiots.

-Jamie McGregor

Check out my colo(u)ring pages website: http://sites.google.com/site/carcoloringpages/
User avatar
mario
Posts: 8091
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 17:13

Re: Steve Nichols Interview on the MP4/4

Post by mario »

Row Man Gross-Gene wrote:I haven't watched yet, but I read the article and the video comments, but this is kind of interesting because Murray is the kind of figure that media outlets go to in order to get comments or to generate content through podcasts and interviews and such. He's a very respected person in that way. I've listened to multiple podcasts and such with him and he's an enjoyable person to listen to. A couple of things come to mind though, sort of two sides of the same coin.

First, he was the technical director (or equivalent). By definition he can claim to be responsible for the MP4/4. There is absolutely no dishonor in being the person in charge.

Second, he was the technical director. Of course he wasn't putting pen to paper 8 hours a day, it's a managerial position. Maybe back then technical directors still drew cars and wings and stuff, but probably not (at least at a large team like McLaren).

It's weird that Murray would choose this hill to die on. I'd bet the majority of the buyers for the T.50 don't really give much of a shite about this stuff, so its not helping much. Probably more of Nichols' buyers would care though.

I'll watch the video this evening and hopefully comment a bit more. I must also say, I have the back issues of Motor Sport on my shelf, but I haven't read them yet, I'll have to make time so I can read the Murray interview and the McLaren staff letter in detail.

I don't think it is entirely surprising that, at the time, there might have been the perception that Murray was the superstar designer from whose mind the MP4/4 originated from.

At the time, those who would have been interested in motorsport probably would have had an impression of the sport that was based on individuals like Chapman, based on what the sport was like in the 1970s and early 1980s.

An individual like Chapman was a technical director, but was also involved in the design process to a greater degree than would have been possible in later years - to that end, the idea of the technical director being more heavily involved in the technical side than the managerial side would have seemed plausible at the time. Even now, you could say that there is still some element of that today in the way that some cars are discussed - most notably the comments about a "Newey car", even though Newey is, to some extent, in a similar position to Murray (Newey being a Chief Technical Officer) and, like Murray, his influence will be diluted amongst the team.

Furthermore, as some have noted in response to that video, back in that era, Murray was the public face of the technical department. When looking for an individual to heap praise on, Murray, as the most public figure, would have been the person to whom attention would have focussed.

To some extent, that is also reflected in the work by Bamsey, and the honest comment that, at the time, the sense of privilege in being allowed access to those involved when the sport was a more closed world would have shaped his perceptions, and with Murray being the main point of contact, any narrative would have skewed to his perspective of events.

As for why he might choose that hill to die on, as you put it, I would imagine it is because, as Nichols notes, the reputation and legend of Murray's brand does rely on that image of him as the father of a legendary racing car. At a time when Murray is trading on that for the sales of his latest car, the T.50, to challenge the reputation of Murray is to challenge part of the basis that car is sold on.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning:
"The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
User avatar
Row Man Gross-Gene
Posts: 751
Joined: 03 Jan 2010, 18:48
Location: Minnesota, USA
Contact:

Re: Steve Nichols Interview on the MP4/4

Post by Row Man Gross-Gene »

You're right Mario, I guess I just find it unnecessary and sad for Murray to be trying to claim more credit than he deserves on that one car. He clearly was the designer of a number of good/great cars earlier on, plus being the lead designer on the F1 road car.

Since he seems like an overall decent person it just seems weird, which is why I brought up the fallibility of memory, but again, the facts have been made pretty clear, so maybe he's just accepted it but doesn't want to admit he was wrong publicly.
It's just unbelievable...that Formula 1 could be such a ridiculous melange of idiots.

-Jamie McGregor

Check out my colo(u)ring pages website: http://sites.google.com/site/carcoloringpages/
User avatar
Butterfox
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6192
Joined: 30 Nov 2009, 19:45
Location: Stupid, sexy Flanders.

Re: Steve Nichols Interview on the MP4/4

Post by Butterfox »

Nichols claim that Murray tried to salvage the absolute disaster that the BT55 was, kinda makes sense too, i think.
I don't know what i want and i want it now!
Post Reply