bugatti-veyron?

Snowie

Now in general a lot of people rave about this car as in its amazing to look at, Its amazing.

Personally looking at it, It looks like a beatle with passat headlight's.

It is not attractive the wheels are ugly the hole car has nothing desirable about it what so ever, Id rather drive a skoda then it to be honest.
Its got build quality under the vw brand but it hasn't really got much else has it I mean please some body any one explain to me why this car is so well
liked ?
There's cars that are nearly as fast and about 10 times more desirable....

Bugatti
http://www.supercars.dk/cars/bugatti/bugatti-veyron.

Pagini Zonda, not as fast but has the look of a fighter plane with that all glass cabin and has some style.

http://pagani-zonda.info/images/wallpapers/2005-Pagani-Zonda-F-902887.jpeg

Or a Konenisegg http://images.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn-www.rsportscars.com/images/koenigsegg/2009-koenigsegg-ccxr-edition/koenigsegg-edition-ccxr-front-quarter-main.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rsportscars.com/koenigsegg/2009-koenigsegg-ccxr-edition/pictures/&usg=__rMxzrKOzdyGYdzIz25hrTAM4nAE=&h=1276&w=1600&sz=444&hl=en&start=46&sig2=tNxiGet4K6r466cimpA5kQ&um=1&tbnid=uOH5ei8Gr-vAdM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKoenigsegg%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENIE329%26sa%3DN%26start%3D36%26um%3D1&ei=OBhySsKdFNHAjAfhjLzDDA




Review for booth cars http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1428676873280948546

I know the two cars above mentioned our way the 1000bhp

what are your views

Delta Kilo

I saw the Veyron in a showroom in Berlin last October and to be honest I didn't know what to think of it!

First off, it's really short! Id bet the VW Golf is longer than it! It's as wide as hell though, but really short.

I think the Beetle with passat lights analogy is spot on.

Having said that, I'd still give my right arm for one of them because there is just something about them that I just can't put my finger on. It seems to shout : "BUY ME, BUY ME, BUY ME, YOU KNOW YOU WANT ME" when you are looking at it.

unkel

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

the hole car has nothing desirable about it what so ever, Id rather drive a skoda then it to be honest.

Yeah so many cars are nearly as fast as the Veyron, it's getting boring. I'd rather drive a Skoda too. I believe the 1.9 TDI is a pocket rocket. Chip it and in real life it'll be nearly as fast as a Veyron too.

Mr Benevolent

unkel wrote: »

Chip it and in real life it'll be nearly as fast as a Veyron too.

But all you have to do then is chip the Veyron

Mind you, apparently a chipped VAG 2.5 TDI can outrun the Space Shuttle

Alanstrainor

The Veyron is an engineering masterpiece though. Saw one in Berlin in January, and it was amazing. Yes there are faster cars out there, but they're usually stripped out racers, the veyron has about 3 cows worth of leather making up the interior.

cashmni1

OP - The Veron is an engineering masterpiece. The Skoda is not.
To get a car over 200mph is a huge task and the other cars you mention are a breed of race car so to speak, that's why they look like they do.
VW make a loss building every car. They did it to prove that it can be done.
It is simply an unbelievable piece of machinery. All the other cars that can match either the power or speed have serious compromises in their design. Just to mach the Veron in one area is quite a feat, but no one can mach the pace, power and refinement all rolled in to one car.

Edit: beaten to it

Wibbs

As far as ultimate cars go, I think the Mclaren F1 is a far purer and better car. Look at the top gear "shootout" recently. Yes the Bugatti won, but only just and it took it's sweet time doing so. The Bugatti was noticeably slower off the line. It had more horsepower and four wheel drive and 10 odd years of development on it, yet the Mclaren bereft of all the overengineering had it by the nuts up to 140+ MPH.

Plus you dont have to stop the Mclaren and get out, insert a key to tell it, "oh BTW now you're allowed to go really fast". It would have been more interesting of they had had a few corners added to the mix.

Clarkson's reaction was interesting "oh the fastest car in the world beat another car". Yea nice one JC, you've been raving how it would fly past the Mclaren, but oh look, it didn't. Try the same test in the real world and I still reckon the F1 would have it by the nuts.

The Bugatti is a wonderful engineering exercise where the engineering had to follow the style. It's not a case of form following function and thats why I don't rate it. The F1 does and that's why I rate it. The Bugatti is a great marketing tool for Saudi princes who think they have the best. It's the automotive equivalent of solid gold taps in your jax. Yea, looks OK, is very expensive and will impress the mates, but c'mon, it's not cool, indeed it's crass and lazy and bereft of style and it's not the best.

Wibbs

cashmni1 wrote: »

All the other cars that can match either the power or speed have serious compromises in their design.

Hardly. As I said the F1 is far purer and has far less compromises than the Veyron. The Veyron is the very epitome of compromise, but brilliantly done. If it wasn't it wouldn't have the turbos, which limit feel and response for a start. For another, the car was designed as a styling exercise before it was even built, regardless of hw that design would impact it's performance. Now fair play, they got it to work and kudos all around for that, but that's like training a giraffe to be a shot putter, impressive if you can do it, but hardly a reflection on the purity of ones shotputting design skills.

unkel

Wibbs wrote: »

As far as ultimate cars go, I think the Mclaren F1 is a far purer and better car. Look at the top gear "shootout" recently. Yes the Bugatti won, but only just and it took it's sweet time doing so. The Bugatti was noticeably slower off the line. It had more horsepower and four wheel drive and 10 odd years of development on it, yet the Mclaren bereft of all the overengineering had it by the nuts up to 140+ MPH.

Here we go again

Top gear is about entertaining people, not about serious car reviews or tests. The Veyron is so much quicker than the F1 off the line that it would sicken you, me or any other car enthousiast if they would really show it to us. So they didn't

Zonda999

Confab wrote: »

Mind you, apparently a chipped VAG 2.5 TDI can outrun the Space Shuttle

I'd believe it, ye know!;)

Snowie

I dont get it

Your all about the automotive brillance of vw are they really that great what for making a car, thats got 1000bhp Are they FVck Japanese tuning companys
Jun created a skyline R33 GTR http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3215402797651869326 (JCs affraid of that car to ) with 6 cylinders....

Theres nothing, mildly interesting about the veryon its a penis measuring tool.
its for fat cat execs or as wibbs said, Saudi princes etc. I'd agree the Maclaren F1 is the mother of all epic cars I remember when that came out with if funky driver seat in the middle brilliant I remember watching Tiff Neadal driveing it i was like :eek:that car is awesome and the sound of the thing is it makes my nipples hard, where as the vw veryon is just well it just sounds like a bad case of
flatulence.

it looks like a beatle it doesn't handle particularly well ok it goes fast.

But what else does it have ? its not a feat of engineering because the japs already beat them to it buy about 13 years....

Santa Claus

You've got to remember that the F1 was designed by McLaren using Formula 1 technology in the time when the so called "drivers aids" were still allowed in F1, so a lot of the technology in it has probably only come to production now.

The F1 came with it's own diagnostic kit that you plugged into the engine and sent the results down the phone line to the McLaren engineers....you're average grease monkey wonder know where to start analysing all the stats it pumped out (I saw the output once as a cousin worked in McLaren and showed me 12 pages of old dot matrix paper that was a typical F1 diagnostic)

The only thing that put me off the F1 was it's looks...to me it looks like the result of a one night stand between a Aston Martin and a Jaguar XK8....the Veyron is a real one of it's kind in design terms. I saw one on the Clontarf road a few months back and it was unreal looking and the sound from it even just idling at lights was amazing.

Having said that I'd gladly drive either of them over a Skoda, but fingers crossed provided the VRT don't take the piss with coming up with a figure I might be driving a Lotus Europa soon...with it's power to weight that's a little pocket rocket and a lovely design (at least I think so, I know Top Gear found it boring and didn't even show their review of it but then they had reviewed the Elise and Exige and it's basically and Exige with a boot).

rabbitinlights

I was reading recently that you have to change the tires (£6000) on the veyron every 2,500 miles and THE WHEELS every 7500 miles at a cost of £30,000 and the first service is £15,000 and goes up from there.

I'd have a Zonda F over a Veyron, but if you wanted one to cross europe in true comfort then its the Veyron.

S.

Cmar-Ireland

OP add a poll to this.

The Konenisegg is not at all a good looking car.
The Zonda is georgous, like a fighter jet without wings.

But my vote is going to the McLaren F1.

Wibbs

Santa Claus wrote: »

You've got to remember that the F1 was designed by McLaren using Formula 1 technology in the time when the so called "drivers aids" were still allowed in F1, so a lot of the technology in it has probably only come to production now.

Yes and no, but mostly no. The F1 has sweet FA going on in the way of drivers aids. No power steering, no 4WD, no sequential gearbox, no ABS, it doesn't even have servo assist on the brakes. No drive by wire at all. Everything is very mechanical.

Gordon Murray was clear from the start that he didn't want to build a racing car(though it found success there). He used some principles from racing(just add lightness, use the engine as a mounting point for suspension etc), but that's about it. It was built from a blank sheet as a road car. The main formula 1 tech in it is in the carbon monocoque and driver safety cell and the use of the wind tunnel to shape every detail of the car. It's actually quite a technology free car. The average Opel of the time had more drivers aids. It didn't even have a radio.

The F1 came with it's own diagnostic kit that you plugged into the engine and sent the results down the phone line to the McLaren engineers....you're average grease monkey wonder know where to start analysing all the stats it pumped out (I saw the output once as a cousin worked in McLaren and showed me 12 pages of old dot matrix paper that was a typical F1 diagnostic)

That was a very cool feature the built in modem. It fired an ECU info dump with a few extras(road speed etc).

The only thing that put me off the F1 was it's looks...to me it looks like the result of a one night stand between a Aston Martin and a Jaguar XK8....the Veyron is a real one of it's kind in design terms. I saw one on the Clontarf road a few months back and it was unreal looking and the sound from it even just idling at lights was amazing.

I agree somewhat. The F1 looks better in the flesh. It's bloody tiny too. The Veyron is a design/engineering triumph, given the limitations of the design. For me it doesn't quite work as an object. It's too beetle like(the insect), but then again I am weird. It reminds me of the Countach of the 70's. Spacey looking, very different with great performance on paper and was wall art for a generation of teenagers. As a car? Not much cop. I'd say the same of the Veyron in the fullness of time.

Having said that I'd gladly drive either of them over a Skoda,

+10000

but fingers crossed provided the VRT don't take the piss with coming up with a figure I might be driving a Lotus Europa soon...with it's power to weight that's a little pocket rocket and a lovely design (at least I think so, I know Top Gear found it boring and didn't even show their review of it but then they had reviewed the Elise and Exige and it's basically and Exige with a boot).

Niiiice. I think they're a lovely looking car. Delicate looking. Great performance too.

Biro

Wibbs wrote: »

As far as ultimate cars go, I think the Mclaren F1 is a far purer and better car. Look at the top gear "shootout" recently. Yes the Bugatti won, but only just and it took it's sweet time doing so. The Bugatti was noticeably slower off the line. It had more horsepower and four wheel drive and 10 odd years of development on it, yet the Mclaren bereft of all the overengineering had it by the nuts up to 140+ MPH.

Plus you dont have to stop the Mclaren and get out, insert a key to tell it, "oh BTW now you're allowed to go really fast". It would have been more interesting of they had had a few corners added to the mix.

Clarkson's reaction was interesting "oh the fastest car in the world beat another car". Yea nice one JC, you've been raving how it would fly past the Mclaren, but oh look, it didn't. Try the same test in the real world and I still reckon the F1 would have it by the nuts.

The Bugatti is a wonderful engineering exercise where the engineering had to follow the style. It's not a case of form following function and thats why I don't rate it. The F1 does and that's why I rate it. The Bugatti is a great marketing tool for Saudi princes who think they have the best. It's the automotive equivalent of solid gold taps in your jax. Yea, looks OK, is very expensive and will impress the mates, but c'mon, it's not cool, indeed it's crass and lazy and bereft of style and it's not the best.

Don't go by that Top Gear nonsense race. Two things. Temperatures that high affect the power of turbo cars more than N/A cars, so unless you live somewhere in 50 degrees heat then it's not a factor, and the second thing is Richard wasn't allowed to use the launch control for that race, which defeats the purpose.
In reality the McLaren can get a 10 second head start and the Bugatti will beat it to 200mph. Think about that. It's an awesome achievement. The Bugatti will beat the McLaren to 60, 100, 125, and every speed. That race was a sham. And that's a fact, I'll scan in the report from Top Gear magazine if you like.
And for purity, don't look to the McLaren F1 - The Ferrari F40 is king!

smash

The Veyron is possibly the most underwhelming car I've ever seen.

td2008

rabbitinlights wrote: »

I was reading recently that you have to change the tires (£6000) on the veyron every 2,500 miles and THE WHEELS every 7500 miles at a cost of £30,000 and the first service is £15,000 and goes up from there.

I'd have a Zonda F over a Veyron, but if you wanted one to cross europe in true comfort then its the Veyron.

S.

Yeah i heard that about the tyres alright, dont know why you'd need to change the wheels though?

Wibbs

Oh I agree and I also agree the F40 is more pure. Well it's basically a track/race car, it's not really a road car. Windup windows and a clothes line to open the door. It was designed from a different angle. The Bugatti was designed to get the figures and impress the aforementioned Saudi princes and to be more luxurious. It does all of the above brilliantly. The F1 sits in the middle. It's less luxurious than the Bugatti and it's not as focused as the F40. IMHO it's the nicer compromise.

Of the three, the F40 as anything approaching sniffing distance in practicality as a road car just doesn't have it. I would not fancy driving to the south of France in the thing. The other two, no bother. Even there as a track/racing car it's a compromise. Many actual coupe race cars would destroy it on the track. Some very mundane ones too. On the road, point to point. A mitzi evo would have it's measure IMHO. It's too wide, it's too heavily sprung, it's too low, it's clutch is apparently a weightlifting exercise(for no good bloody reason), dynamically you have to fight it. On top of that the F1 and the F40 are the same weight give or take a few Kgs(1100Kgs), but the F1 has more luxury. That alone is impressive.

I think the Bugatti is a great car. It does what it says on the tin and the engineering behind it is bloody impressive. Ditto the F1. The F40, for me at least doesn't come close. It brought little to the genre, it's even a compromise in it's so called purity. It's old tech basically and was when it came out. If it wasn't made by the prancing horse crowd it would have barely registered.

pburns

Hypercars bore me and TBH all discussion and debate about them just make me glaze over. I haven't been excited about these type of cars since I was 12 years old and had a poster of a Coutach on my bedroom wall.

The only place you can exploit that type of performance is on a racetrack. The only people who can exploit that type of performance (even the supposedly usable Veyron) are professional racing drivers. Too big, too wide, too expensive to be really enjoyed. Pointless. The new Ferrari 458 excites me far more than any Bugatti. It is beautiful, usable and...almost attainable. It has some sort of real world relevance - you'll see one parked kerbside in SoCoDub or London or the South of Spain some time soon.

Biro

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree and I also agree the F40 is more pure. Well it's basically a track/race car, it's not really a road car. Windup windows and a clothes line to open the door. It was designed from a different angle. The Bugatti was designed to get the figures and impress the aforementioned Saudi princes and to be more luxurious. It does all of the above brilliantly. The F1 sits in the middle. It's less luxurious than the Bugatti and it's not as focused as the F40. IMHO it's the nicer compromise.

Of the three, the F40 as anything approaching sniffing distance in practicality as a road car just doesn't have it. I would not fancy driving to the south of France in the thing. The other two, no bother. Even there as a track/racing car it's a compromise. Many actual coupe race cars would destroy it on the track. Some very mundane ones too. On the road, point to point. A mitzi evo would have it's measure IMHO. It's too wide, it's too heavily sprung, it's too low, it's clutch is apparently a weightlifting exercise(for no good bloody reason), dynamically you have to fight it. On top of that the F1 and the F40 are the same weight give or take a few Kgs(1100Kgs), but the F1 has more luxury. That alone is impressive.

I think the Bugatti is a great car. It does what it says on the tin and the engineering behind it is bloody impressive. Ditto the F1. The F40, for me at least doesn't come close. It brought little to the genre, it's even a compromise in it's so called purity. It's old tech basically and was when it came out. If it wasn't made by the prancing horse crowd it would have barely registered.

I couldn't agree with you less regarding the F40. The F1 is twice the price and more of a compromise. It's trying to be both user friendly and quick on a track. For me, multi-millionaire cash allowing (which all of these cars are), I'd have the F40 for the track no question over an F1. And something else for the long trips. That's how the F40 is designed. I can't see how you think it's a compromise.
Regarding the OP's comment about everyone blowing on about it's a VW and the Japs are better - I don't care for VW's engineering, but the Bugatti is well engineered no matter who was over it. And regarding the 1000bhp R33 - Fine - why bother with anything else if that's the pinnacle of motoring? You can tune a Bugatti just like you can tune a Skyline!

Drummerboy08

**Enters Dreamworld**
<<<
Veyron this, McClaren that.......
>>>
**Leaves Dreamworld in a Golf TDi**

Stevie Dakota

I always find it funny that people can get so excited about a car designed for the uber elite, cars they they will never drive, never own and no doubt never, ever see. I think these Supercars are increasingly irrelevant and are simple eye candy/car porn. "But the engineering!" is the cry, look, we know what can be done with Supercars, it's been done to death. So this one has 1000bhp, woop-de-doo, and don't try the trickle down engineering argument either, no amount of convincing will persuade me a Panda has any thing in common with a Ferrari.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Saruman

Car p0rn.


Lovely looking car, I prefer it to the more traditional race car looks of the zonda.

Snowie

Saruman wrote: »

Car p0rn.


Lovely looking car, I prefer it to the more traditional race car looks of the zonda.

Yeah but a chrome one ? it s a bit.... tacky.

Id rather its got a little more class

Wibbs

Biro wrote: »

I couldn't agree with you less regarding the F40. The F1 is twice the price and more of a compromise. It's trying to be both user friendly and quick on a track.

Not according to the design brief of Gordon Murray. He was completely against it as a race car from the start. He made road car compromises early on. Now they did adapt it for the track and racing in the LM version, but that drive came from some of the customers. It killed the F40's there too.

For me, multi-millionaire cash allowing (which all of these cars are), I'd have the F40 for the track no question over an F1. And something else for the long trips. That's how the F40 is designed. I can't see how you think it's a compromise.

Because it's simply not a particularly great track car. It's OK, it's not great. It's too softly sprung for the track, yet too hard for the road. Dynamically it's not too great either by many many accounts. The turbos are a compromise as well. Neither is the F1 BTW, apparently too much twitchiness in the arse, but as I say the design brief for the F1 was for the ultimate road supercar, not track car. Too different arenas. The F1 follows it's purpose better than the F40 IMHO, while still being very usable as a road car. That was one of the biggest points Murray went for after quaity and lightness. Usability. You can drive the F1 to tescos and it won't scrape the raod along the way.There are far more patents in car engineering attached to the F1 when compared to the F40. The F40 is cool and an interesting car, but IMHO yet another example of the old Ferrari slightly tweaking what already exists, but not adding much to the mix. Then again throughout their history they were rarely at the forefront of technology.

Regarding the OP's comment about everyone blowing on about it's a VW and the Japs are better - I don't care for VW's engineering, but the Bugatti is well engineered no matter who was over it. And regarding the 1000bhp R33 - Fine - why bother with anything else if that's the pinnacle of motoring? You can tune a Bugatti just like you can tune a Skyline!

I would agree. A tad apples and oranges. I would however seriously doubt you could tune the Bugatti much beyond what it has already. It's already at a crazy state of tune. Bigger turbos? Well then you're adding to the already daft amount of heat produced. So then you're into bigger or more radiators and it has enough of them already(most of any road car?). Indeed I would strongly suspect you won't see them being raced by privateers. I would put good money it would blow up in sustained racing conditions, because of that heat buildup. As it is it loses something like half of it's overall gross BHP to heat. You could lighten it though. Strip out the luxury stuff. That would speed it up and improve its' dynamics.

Biro

I just don't get why you think the F40 is a compromise on the track. It's far stiffer than the F1, just look at videos. The F1 is leaning majorly to one side when cornering quick, the F40 just isn't. Some of the best drivers in the world loved the F40 for the ableness to hit an apex every time with ease, more than any other car. The F40 is behind the McLaren no doubt in terms of technology, but it's 6 years earlier too. In games console terms the F40 is from the era of the Atari 2600, the McLaren is in the time of the Playstation 1. That's a long way of technological improvements.
In any case, Gordon Murray had the NSX in the design brief of the McLaren as the benchmark of a useable supercar. Even he admitted that he got close with the McLaren, but didn't match it as an everyday useable supercar!
So in conclusion, I'd have an NSX! Much more affordable!

Santa Claus

We need Nick Mason here (the guy from pink floyd who has the massive car collection), I think he owns most of the cars that have been mentioned so far (apart from the Skoda possibly).

Wibbs

Biro wrote: »

I just don't get why you think the F40 is a compromise on the track. It's far stiffer than the F1, just look at videos. The F1 is leaning majorly to one side when cornering quick, the F40 just isn't. Some of the best drivers in the world loved the F40 for the ableness to hit an apex every time with ease, more than any other car. The F40 is behind the McLaren no doubt in terms of technology, but it's 6 years earlier too. In games console terms the F40 is from the era of the Atari 2600, the McLaren is in the time of the Playstation 1. That's a long way of technological improvements.
In any case, Gordon Murray had the NSX in the design brief of the McLaren as the benchmark of a useable supercar. Even he admitted that he got close with the McLaren, but didn't match it as an everyday useable supercar!
So in conclusion, I'd have an NSX! Much more affordable!

Funny enough so would I:) Good car, reliable as fook and cheap for what it is. I've had a go of one. Very easy to drive and drive fast. Not the fastest, but well fast enough and a granny could drive it and any mechanic could service it. Murray bought one for himself as a comparison and as a personal drive after testing all the other supercars of the day for performance car magazine. I'd have to go for the NSX R though.

Biro

Wibbs wrote: »

Funny enough so would I:) Good car, reliable as fook and cheap for what it is. I've had a go of one. Very easy to drive and drive fast. Not the fastest, but well fast enough and a granny could drive it and any mechanic could service it. Murray bought one for himself as a comparison and as a personal drive after testing all the other supercars of the day for performance car magazine. I'd have to go for the NSX R though.

I've had the pleasure of having the use of one for a day too! The sound is like nothing else I've heard since, best sounding 6 cylinder engine in the world I reckon! Definitely from what I've listened to anyway, and that includes an E46 M3.

Biro

Santa Claus wrote: »

We need Nick Mason here (the guy from pink floyd who has the massive car collection), I think he owns most of the cars that have been mentioned so far (apart from the Skoda possibly).

Nick Mason is the man. Everyone spouts on about Jay Kay when it comes to car collections. Jay Kay is a tosser. Nick is the real car nut! he probably has an Octavia 1.9 Tee Dee eye, with a massive boot. What car nut wouldn't?