The first time that people at Bertone heard
of or saw the Lamborghini chassis was when it was unveiled in Turin. In fact,
that seems to have been the first time that anyone outside of Lamborghini knew
of the project, except for a select few at Touring. On 14 September 1965,
engineer Paolo Stanzani had requested that the carrozzeria – which
crafted the bodywork for the 350GT – submit a proposal for Project Tigre (as it
was then called). Touring showed a rendering to Ferruccio Lamborghini and his
engineers on 26 October, and they were asked to ready a scale model, which was
presented soon after.
But following the success of the P400
chassis in Turin, Lamborghini took the decision to get Bertone to clothe the
chassis, and work began there in November ’65. Stroppa readied the side
elevations of the chassis, power pack and hard points, and Gandini sketched on
to them the outline that would become the profile of the Miura. Stroppa’s
drawings were ready by 20 December, and Gandini’s of the front, side and rear –
along with the full-scale model – by Christmas Eve. “The drawing was approved
immediately,” explains Dallara, who says that only minor detail changes were
added later.
Stanzani confirms this part of the story: “Ferruccio
accepted Nuccio Bertone’s proposal of collaborating at the Turin Motor Show and
a few days later we provided the indications and data necessary for the
development of a styling proposal. In the first meeting, Dallara and I
expressed to Marcello Gandini our points of view on how our new car should be
and in particular on what we had in mind for the body: a race car for the road!
We mentioned the Ford GT40 because that was the non plus ultra at that
time. A few days later, Gandini presented some sketches and renderings of his
styling proposal. Ferruccio and all of us were enthusiastic and did not want
any changes. From that moment on, we started to define the development of the
project.”
But
following the success of the P400 chassis in Turin, Lamborghini took the
decision to get Bertone to clothe the chassis, and work began there in November
’65
Author Joe Sackey, who had previously
credited Giugiaro with the ‘preliminary drawings for the Miura’, later wrote”
‘Enter the 27-year-old Marcello Gandini. He was officially assigned the Miura
project, credited with its design and, as both Bertone and Gandini concur, he
started from scratch. The chassis was sent up to Bertone and it was the young
Gandini who suggested to the engineers that the radiator be moved forwards and
down so that he could indulge in an ultra-low swoopy front end.
‘Gandini was totally involved and completed
the project from start to finish using the actual car’s chassis. Remember,
Giugiaro never even saw the chassis! The resultant Miura design was in fact all
Gandini. Remember, too, that Giugiaro was never officially credited with the
Miura P400, so to say that he was the car’s designer is simply incorrect. He
started on “a project” and he designed “something” that never amounted to a real
car and wasn’t the Miura.’
So, just one proposal was made by Gandini
and it was adopted with few changes. This is confirmed by not only Gandini, but
also Dallara, Stanzani and Stroppa. The three other so-called alternative
proposals were actually prepared some time later in 1966 by a young intern
working at Bertone – after the Miura was unveiled at Geneva – on the
insistence of Enzo Prearo and essentially for ‘press purposes’. These were
never under consideration by either the management at Lamborghini or at
Bertone, nor were they part of any development iterations prior to deciding the
final design.
Work began on constructing the prototype’s
body in January 1966, and there wasn’t even time to do proper drawings of the
interior, says Stroppa. Gandini’s rough sketches became the basis for an
interior to be constructed “on the run”, while Stroppa worked on the design of
the wheels and the famous Miura logo. Gandini is emphatic when he says that he
didn’t see any drawings of a mid-engined car left behind by Giugiaro. Stroppa
also says that he wasn’t aware of any such drawings and points out that he had
seen Gandini draw directly on to the chassis-mechanical elevation blueprints.
The
Miura continues to evoke strong feelings among designers
The only incomplete work that Giugiaro
seems to have left behind was the designs of what were to become the Alfa Romeo
1750 and the Fiat Dino, a Gandini clearly states that these two cars are
Giugiaro’s work.
The Miura continues to evoke strong
feelings among designers. “I visited Bertone just before the 1966 Turin show,”
says Oliver Winterbottom. “The only fully finished Miura had been rushed back
from London for a quick refurbishment. There must have been six people working
on it – a panel-beater who had tapped out a nearly invisible dent in one door
threw his hammer over the roof to his colleague on the other door, such was
their confidence in each other’s skills. It is impossible to describe how
sensational it was at the time and, I think, still is.”
“Expressing any criticism of the Miura
feels more unpopular than criticizing someone’s newborn baby,” says Peter
Stevens, “but someone has to do it. The basic architecture is great – the
engineering package was so different from contemporary front-engined GTs that
it would have been hard to go wrong – but the stance is so mow at the rear. The
lower sill line slopes down towards the back, which makes it look as if the
engine is too heavy or the boot is full of potatoes. The shapes of the wheel
openings are inconsistent in their relationship to the tyres and the wheels
themselves are too far back in the openings. Sure, the roof is a bit flat, too,
but the overall impression is still totally arresting.”
Driving
a Miura is everything you’d expect; slightly uncomfortable; quite hard work,
but noisy and exhilarating
To ascertain whether or not the Miura may
have been influenced by Giugiaro’s drawings, we showed photographs of the
mock-up that Fabrizio gifted his father to French designer Gerard Godfroy and
American Tom Tjaarda, who worked at Italdesign with Giugiaro.
“The mock-up looks a lot like the
Bizzarrini 5300GT and the Alfa Romeo T33 Stradale,” says Godfroy. “The Miura is
very different – it has the proportions of the Ford GT40, which is more
‘rustic’ and looks like the work of an engineer, whereas the Miura is so much
more sophisticated and beautifully detailed.”
Tjaarda believes that the mock-up has a bit
of the Giugiaro-designed Alfa Romeo Canguro, “missed with a Bizzarrini front
end and a Ferrari Dino rear-window treatment. It has absolutely nothing to do
with the Miura. To me, the big innovation of the Miura style-wise is the rear
quarter panel, the air intake that slightly breaks away from the body and then
flows into the side and rear in a very elegant way. To my mind, this makes it
one of the most beautiful of all classic cars. Whose idea was this? I do not
think that Giugiaro left a design of such detail.
“Sometimes, the difference between good and
mediocre design is in the details but, in most cases, also the overall proportions
of the car. Some small detail or proportion can make a huge difference. For
this reason I do not understand what Fabrizio was trying to prove.”
As another leading stylist, who wishes to
remain anonymous, said: “The designer of the century cannot come to terms with
the fact that the design of the century isn’t his work. Without doubt the Miura
is the work of Marcello Gandini and Giugiaro had nothing to do with it.”
