I'm really pleased to see some sensible discussion here, neither over heated nor boorish. Thanks to all and it has again convinced me that forums like this are a good thing to be part of. Please don't think I am against the M3W, I am spending my own hard earned cash on it after all. I happen to like lightweight, small and powerful cars, the simpler, lighter and more basic the better, and I am sure you all know Colin Chapmans philosophy of 'adding lightness', so this is the direction, after a lifetime of Chapmans products, from which I am coming. The fact that the car is 525kgs, in itself, does not make it a bad product, though I am aware of several people who have either cancelled orders or not placed them because of the weight and lower power issues. I am after a unique driving experience, I am sure I won't be disappointed.
I am very willing to believe that there is sufficient power, more, in fact than the chassis can handle, which is what makes it so much fun, [and possibly a little dangerous], I believe I am coming more from an engineering angle, though I am no qualified engineer, but have had a lifetimes experience with many mechanical things, and of course, I am looking for a sensible discussion on the merits of the development of the car.
I really do not think that the fact that the Seven has had over 45 years of development affects the development of the M3W, rather MMC should have taken advantage of all that work when redesigning it. Like the M3W, the Seven parts are all outsourced, and whilst the chassis manufacturer is not a midlands company, I am sure they would have been delighted to have redesigned and made a lightweight chassis. I doubt they were asked though. Of course I do not have the advantage of knowing anyone at the works, so can only comment as an outsider, not knowing the trials, tribulations and difficulties which needed to be overcome, much easier to do when you do not know the personalities involved, but never the less relevant.
The fact that a power upgrade is available soon would indicate that the works think the car can take the power, which is why I commented that it was a shame it was not available from the word go, then an upgrade would not be required - do you see where I'm coming from with this line?
As far as personal development is concerned, although I have not raced much [a few races in my 20's] I have sprinted and hillclimbed for over 10 years, retiring 5 years ago when I thought my reactions were slowing some, and have a thorough understanding of developing self and car for greater performance, and I can only agree that engine power comes at the bottom of the list, however, in practice it does not always do so, as it is the easiest and possibly the cheapest to do, and the temptation is always to look at this first, especially if the power is easily available, as it is in this case.
Can I also comment, as a newbie here, on Mogwire. I agree that there is always a negative slant to what is written, and that has to be taken into context when reading, however, on the whole I find it an interesting and informative window on all things Morgan. If someone would like to PM me with details of why friction has developed between the editor and the MMC, I would be grateful and it will help me understand the wonderful world of Morgans a little better.
