- 3,190
- Devon
- julessy98
- Jahhaj6
Apart from the wheels, I agree with you.Who else thinks the Truffade Adder from GTA V looks better than a real Veyron?
Apart from the wheels, I agree with you.Who else thinks the Truffade Adder from GTA V looks better than a real Veyron?
First things first, you're hereby thrown out of the GTP mafia book club of liberals who all agree on everything, we can't have you disagreeing with the consensusHow many actually think that though? Plenty of those "younger individuals" are in this very thread saying how much they hate it. It's the poster child for supercar hate because it's the one that everyone assumes is overrated due to the bare figures.
With the Veyron, we have several people not even debating the merits of the car itself, and how it might be driven, but voting based on the image perceived by others of a particular demographic (the Top Gear generation, let's say). It's very meta, given we're discussing it on the internet where such views originate from in the first place, but it's certainly an unusual way of judging a car's coolness.
The zero compromise engineering of the Veyron ignores that there is a compromise - price. And that's why I think it's uncool. It's a car that's entire ethos is to be the very best. People drive a Veyron because a Maybach isn't good enough. They drive one because a Ferrari isn't fast enough.
Not for the specs, not for the looks, not for who owns them (because there are some "Uncool" people that do own one) but because, like the Phaeton, it's the VAG giving a giant middle finger to common sense and building a vehicle that is all things to all men at an incredibly exorbitant loss to them.
If the coolness of a car can be judged by those who own them, what does this list say about the Veyron:
Cristiano Ronaldo. Simon Cowell. Jay-Z. Tom Cruise. Ralph Lauren. Chris Brown. Lil' Wayne. Flo Rida. Etc etc.
There's no need to add caveats, a car that's luxurious enough to drink coffee in, and drive daily that weighs 4000lbs, seats two, and hits 253mph is impressive, full stop.If it was just price it wouldn't be so bad. The car compromises everything, there are very few 4000 lbs supercars, and this supreme luxury vehicle can only carry two. The 253 mph bit is impressive, but it's still 1000 HP to get 700 HP worth of performance, until maybe you hit 150-200.
What are the problems, and how would you solve them?I can't see it as the engineering marvel that some other people do because I like solving problems, not making them.
Depends on what the goal is. Throw a big V8 in the thing and you'll make your power, but now it's loud and rumbly and you need to figure our how to fix that. It's not all about raw power, the 16 cylinders and quad turbos is about keeping noise, vibration, and harshness down. It's not a muscle car.The relative simplification of a Radical is good engineering. Giving your engine more cylinders in less a convenient arrangement is hard. It's also doing it wrong.
You sound exactly like my friends.how can a super fast iconic car not be cool?
Out of curiosity, why is this an uncool attribute?and VW loses MILLIONS everytime they sell one
Impressive yes, but still compromised. It's far heavier than a pure sports car is, this shows in the handling (though I wish it was tested more). It's only average as far as [supercar] grip goes, and while easy to drive, it's a bit sluggish on curvy roads. This car does not do everything better than everything else. It does much well, but other than the top speed, it's not really record setting.There's no need to add caveats, a car that's luxurious enough to drink coffee in, and drive daily that weighs 4000lbs, seats two, and hits 253mph is impressive, full stop.
Well this a bit of bias on my part, as prefer performance orientated supercars. I'm not looking to understate the work done to make the car as it is, but in my view trying to make an ultra luxurious car that's also supposed to be at the top end of performance isn't really a higher goal than picking one or the other. Trying to have both is a challenge, but I see it as a self created one. You would get a better performance car by building a performance car and you would get a better luxury car by building a luxury car.What are the problems, and how would you solve them?
Depends on what the goal is. Throw a big V8 in the thing and you'll make your power, but now it's loud and rumbly and you need to figure our how to fix that. It's not all about raw power, the 16 cylinders and quad turbos is about keeping noise, vibration, and harshness down. It's not a muscle car.
The Veyron isn't about the relative simplification of a radical. That's what a Corvette is for.
By being fast the wrong way.Cool for sure, how can a super fast iconic car not be cool?
Veyrons cost a mil and a quarter. That's, like, every Seville.Actually, given vast wealth, I'd have none of them.
Plus when the regular one ended up with the 987 horsepower rating in the US, I remember Automobile (I think it was Ezra Dyer) asked about it and the response was kind of a "don't worry about it" wink, so each individual horsepower is probably a bit more special than those of typical other cars.To be fair to Bugatti, I think that's more a packaging thing than an engineering thing. That they immediately gave it another 200 horses with the Grand Sport showed that there was more potential
I can sort of agree with that. I don't consider the Veyron terribly memorable, it's doesn't stick out in my head like some other cars do. The same thing actually plagues some other cars that are more to my liking. Like the P1 of all things. Even if it lacked that dreadful electric motor. The Veyron is a cardboard box compared to the P1 though.The Veyron embodies the heedless excess that defined high-performance cars during the past decade; it's like a sort of caricature of supercars. It's a rather pale replacement for the other widely famous "fastest car" that preceded it (at least the F1 can keep the title of "fastest car of the 20th century"). The F1 is/was pretty overrated itself, if you care about that as a factor of coolness. But depending on your tastes in terms of what matters in a car, next to the Veyron it's positively saintly.
Out of curiosity, why is this an uncool attribute?
The Veyron isn't VAG giving the middle finger to anyone. They're well known for making cars that do everything well, but do nothing outstanding. The Veyron is no different. If it was a pain in the ass to drive slowly or tricky to drive on the limit, then that would be VAG giving the middle finger, but as Leonidae said above, 'it offers the reliability and drivability of a Golf' - which is exactly what you expect of a VAG product. It's all very much common sense.
Out of curiosity, why is this an uncool attribute?
To me, the fact VW has gone "sod it" and produced a car they can't remotely recoup the cost on (offset by poor saps in Golfs instead) is quite cool.