GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 22,050
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on May 11th, 2020 in the Car Culture category.
Bugatti Designer Reveals a Shelved Second Vision GT Concept
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 32 comments
- 5,840 views
- 1,311
- United States
- ShawnPhillips
- ShanicTheMeme
Looks like the hybrid offspring of a Formula 1 and LMP car.
- 766
- Las Vegas, NV
- K_E_87th
Looks pretty wicked, a shame it was scrapped. It would have been interesting if the Red Bull X series fan cars had some competition amongst them. Otherwise, they are in a class all by themselves, and the SRT Tomahawk X isn't even close to being in the same bracket.
- 2,553
- United States
I'd love to have the type 35. Forza 7 has got it.
- 963
- United Kingdom
I can kinda see why they wouldn't green light this, even if it does have massive wow-factor.
- 5,851
- Dublin
- Paul2007
As a concept or vision it looks fantastic, and I would love to have seen it in GTS, but at the same time I can see why it was not given the green light. Bugatti really like to have cues of previous cars in it's designs and this may just have been a step too far. Pity though.
- 16,438
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
Another one? Not based on the Chiron? That's far more inventive.
And now for the opposite reaction....
It's absolutely horrible.
Much like the McLaren MP4-XX it's 100% form over function. Very much a stylist-styled vehicle, there's basically every aero mistake you can make rolled into one abomination.
"B-b-but it's only a fictional vehicle! Ur a h8-r m8!"
So was the Red Bull X series, and they got it right. Pathetic excuse.
Why not do things right? Not like there isn't good reference or information freely floating around...
This thing, on the other hand....
Front wing elements all stacked over the front wing main-plane. Best case-scenario, the downforce cancels out and it's just added drag for no gain. Worst case it stalls everything out.
Front suspension pullrods connected to...springs on top? You'd need a 3rd element and an additional hinge, which in the technical drawing go through the driver's feet. Ouch.
Slats on the outer floor - good for helping to deal with squirt in front of the rear wheels. In this case, it just rams bad air under the entire length of the floor. They even angle in at the tips, so it's not even sealing the floor, just dragging turbulence inwards...
Sidepods separated from the tub. WHY? Fighter planes do this to get even airflow across turbine fan face, avoiding eating the boundary layer, and the McLaren 2011 F1 car (?) did this because the rules on diffusers, exhausts and rear wing made it barely 'viable'. F1 cars did it in the 90's for similar reasons. Here, there's no reason to do something this bad and just incur more drag.
Rear Wing, why is it so far forward? You want it as a balancing instrument - as far back as possible for the biggest leverage around the CG for the smallest increase in df/drag, as well as the best interaction with other elements. NOT placed over the rear wheels, getting all the high-pressure trash air from the wheels on the underside of the outer elements rendering it worthless.
NACA duct on top, great now there's an additional low-pressure zone on a top surface adding lift? And as the Lister LMP cars proved, an air inlet like the actually costs engine power compared to a snorkel or other 'mild-ram' intake.
Engine cover fin - not connected to anything like the rear wing for DRS, not big enough to help with lateral stability, not big enough to have any difference in increasing pressure on top of the car in a spin (why the LMP cars added them).
Exhausts are somehow (???) plumbed to there? What sort of convoluted time-space path does the turbo plumbing take given the intake and engine (looks to be a full W16)???
Looking front-on, the sidepods seem to get narrower? Why? You want them to expand internally for better pressure across the front face of the radiator. Otherwise you may as well make them that tight at the leading edge. Looks like the interior of the sidepods is only half the available width.
And how does it then connect to the chimneys? Which have their outlet facing forwards, good luck getting half-decent airflow out of those...
It's like someone was shown various photos, but was never told how or why anything works. This thing's like one of those free online story generating bots, basically stringing random unrelated words together and occasionally forming a sentence.
*No, I'm not angry at or attacking the person who styled/modeled this thing, or saying they're a horrible person.*
I'm just really salty that some companies and groups really get it and do these VisionGT and GranTurismo concept things well and smart (Red Bull with the X2010-2014, Citroen by GT, Mercedes, Audi, Infiniti, Mazda, the new Porsche one, Honda, Mazda, Alpine, Toyota, Dodge/SRT, Zagato). And then there's things like this.
Why not make things serve a purpose? What's the goal with this? To explore the limits of a racecar like the Red Bull? To preview new design languages like the Mercedes, give people something that's 110% of what could be possible like Honda, or ask what might maybe be possible in decades like the Dodge? The real Bugatti VGT previewed the Chiron, as a racecar for a series that'll obviously never happen (unlike the lesser Ferrari 458s Porsche 911s, etc) ok fair enough that served a purpose. This thing though? Like Mario kart, but ugly.
It's absolutely horrible.
Much like the McLaren MP4-XX it's 100% form over function. Very much a stylist-styled vehicle, there's basically every aero mistake you can make rolled into one abomination.
"B-b-but it's only a fictional vehicle! Ur a h8-r m8!"
So was the Red Bull X series, and they got it right. Pathetic excuse.
Why not do things right? Not like there isn't good reference or information freely floating around...
This thing, on the other hand....
Front wing elements all stacked over the front wing main-plane. Best case-scenario, the downforce cancels out and it's just added drag for no gain. Worst case it stalls everything out.
Front suspension pullrods connected to...springs on top? You'd need a 3rd element and an additional hinge, which in the technical drawing go through the driver's feet. Ouch.
Slats on the outer floor - good for helping to deal with squirt in front of the rear wheels. In this case, it just rams bad air under the entire length of the floor. They even angle in at the tips, so it's not even sealing the floor, just dragging turbulence inwards...
Sidepods separated from the tub. WHY? Fighter planes do this to get even airflow across turbine fan face, avoiding eating the boundary layer, and the McLaren 2011 F1 car (?) did this because the rules on diffusers, exhausts and rear wing made it barely 'viable'. F1 cars did it in the 90's for similar reasons. Here, there's no reason to do something this bad and just incur more drag.
Rear Wing, why is it so far forward? You want it as a balancing instrument - as far back as possible for the biggest leverage around the CG for the smallest increase in df/drag, as well as the best interaction with other elements. NOT placed over the rear wheels, getting all the high-pressure trash air from the wheels on the underside of the outer elements rendering it worthless.
NACA duct on top, great now there's an additional low-pressure zone on a top surface adding lift? And as the Lister LMP cars proved, an air inlet like the actually costs engine power compared to a snorkel or other 'mild-ram' intake.
Engine cover fin - not connected to anything like the rear wing for DRS, not big enough to help with lateral stability, not big enough to have any difference in increasing pressure on top of the car in a spin (why the LMP cars added them).
Exhausts are somehow (???) plumbed to there? What sort of convoluted time-space path does the turbo plumbing take given the intake and engine (looks to be a full W16)???
Looking front-on, the sidepods seem to get narrower? Why? You want them to expand internally for better pressure across the front face of the radiator. Otherwise you may as well make them that tight at the leading edge. Looks like the interior of the sidepods is only half the available width.
And how does it then connect to the chimneys? Which have their outlet facing forwards, good luck getting half-decent airflow out of those...
It's like someone was shown various photos, but was never told how or why anything works. This thing's like one of those free online story generating bots, basically stringing random unrelated words together and occasionally forming a sentence.
*No, I'm not angry at or attacking the person who styled/modeled this thing, or saying they're a horrible person.*
I'm just really salty that some companies and groups really get it and do these VisionGT and GranTurismo concept things well and smart (Red Bull with the X2010-2014, Citroen by GT, Mercedes, Audi, Infiniti, Mazda, the new Porsche one, Honda, Mazda, Alpine, Toyota, Dodge/SRT, Zagato). And then there's things like this.
Why not make things serve a purpose? What's the goal with this? To explore the limits of a racecar like the Red Bull? To preview new design languages like the Mercedes, give people something that's 110% of what could be possible like Honda, or ask what might maybe be possible in decades like the Dodge? The real Bugatti VGT previewed the Chiron, as a racecar for a series that'll obviously never happen (unlike the lesser Ferrari 458s Porsche 911s, etc) ok fair enough that served a purpose. This thing though? Like Mario kart, but ugly.
- 51,334
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
I see it as a drawing made into "reality". I drew cars all thru my youth and college. Really cool to see what comes from a design with no real limits.
The BMW VGT, is pretty much the M2 in GT3/DTM guise. The Motorsport livery, could have been updated to GR.3 Spec. Similar to the Audi VGT in Gr.1 spec.
Many of these VGTs aren't about give the people what they want. It's about what they can do without shareholders with both hands in their pockets.
The BMW VGT, is pretty much the M2 in GT3/DTM guise. The Motorsport livery, could have been updated to GR.3 Spec. Similar to the Audi VGT in Gr.1 spec.
Many of these VGTs aren't about give the people what they want. It's about what they can do without shareholders with both hands in their pockets.
- 6,285
- Ottawa
- Pyano1132
I think Bugatti should go ahead with green-lighting this concept to be included. It’s in their portfolio already and the previous Vision GT they released generated a lot of buzz from the media and public compared to the other VGT cars. It’s practically free real estate at this point. What is there to loose from having another concept?
- 5,284
- Sick_Cylinder
TonyJZX
(Banned)
- 3,945
- Australia
The 2nd biggest car maker in the world can afford to fix all this so everyone looks good. They probably have guys on call who can do this in their lunchtime.
- 5,284
- Sick_Cylinder
- 1,328
- NRW
- Vinylshark
Designs such as this always make me wonder, how the people behind it imagine tyre changes to happen.
Front wheel cover is part of the rim (you can see fronts turned in one of the pics, and there's a tiny seam between the wheel cover and the pontoon.
Rear wheel cover on the other hand seems to be one piece. Probably explains why it's got two left feet!
Last edited:
- 1,821
- Turkey
Similar threads
