the Interceptor
Premium
- 4,108
- Germany
- theInterceptor77
Okay, if you really want to do this to yourself, make sure you've got plenty of time on your hands, cause this is going to take a lot of it. It basically took me three days to write and hone this text, and it still isn't the most sophisticated article in the world, so be gentle with me. If I forgot a valid argument in my list, you are welcome to tell me so, this text is not considered to be completed as it is. And this obviously is open to a discussion, I'm just asking for it to be proper. If your only response will be "the Veyron is a piece of c**p!", be sure you'll receive a negative reputation from me, cause it'll bring up the question what I did all this work for. So anyway...
The 'Veyron-rant' rant
It is the most-discussed supercar of the last years - the Bugatti Veyron. Advertised for a seemingly endless period, it was finally released to the public in 2005. Since then, press and people have gone crazy over the thing. Surprisingly, there is a very reasonable number of people that do not like this car, some even hate it with all their heart. You would think that at least the petrolheads are happy about a 1001 horsepower monster, if it may not play the leading part in their wet dreams. But no. Surprisingly, you'll even find more haters within these crowds than among the average newspaper reader, who has read about the Veyron somehwere sometime. But why do car lovers dislike this thing so much? Why isn't one of the fastest and most powerful production cars of all time everybodys darling? An analysis of the situation to give some insight...
Claim #1: the Veyron is useless, noone needs such a car
I'm sure all of you have bought something you didn't really need at least once in your life, you just wanted to have it and were willing to spend the money it cost. We all know such items, and the more we want them, the more money we are willing to spend. On a car for example. There are amounts of money a true petrolhead would be willing to spend on a car. Like Corvette money. But then there's Porsche money, where the fun has already stopped if you're not pretty rich. Or Ferrari money for that matter. Or Lamborghini. Then there's the nasty stuff, such as the big ones from the big names in business, along with McLarens and Paganis. After that, you get into real estate property. And I'm not talking about some nasty flat, I'm talking houses – big houses. And then, there's the Bugatti Veyron. They charge you 1,309,000 Euros for it. For a car! That equals eight and a half Ferrari F430. So does it go 8.5 times as quick as an F430? No! Does it look 8.5 times as good as an F430? No! Is it 8.5 times as comfortable, as practical or as spacious as an F430? Surely not! Who on earth is supposed to buy this thing then, and why?
Claim #2: the reason for making the car is just plain wrong
There are bizarre stories of how cars were created. There were cars made out of spite, cars made out of love and cars made out of the most stupid idea you could think of. Successful cars that is. When it comes to performance machines, it usually is a thought of building the ideal vehicle in terms of driving pleasure. Take the Lotus Elise for example, the best-known benchmark of light performance cars. Four cylinders and something between 134 for the standard Elise and 189 bhp for the Exige S are more than enough to propel the tiny insect from 0-60 mph in 5.8 seconds – worst case – and to show presumably far superior opponents what's what on the racetrack. You'll have a hard time to find a true petrolhead that doesn't love or at least respect the Elise for that.
So let's take a look at how the Veyron was born. It all began with the german VAG group buying the name Bugatti in 1998. Responsible for that and other happenings was a man called Ferdinand Piech, executive chairman of the company from 1993 to 2002. Although he has done good to the company, several of his decisions have been discussed from the beginning. So has his idea of reviving the name Bugatti with a groundbreaking vehicle. The idea itself is, but the nasty circumstances cost VAG loads of money, time and countless manhours. Why? Because Piech simply strapped the numbers down, not caring how they are archieved, not asking if they can be archieved at all: more than 400 km/h (250 mph), more than 1000 horsepower, and the looks of the 1999 prototype - period! Not really the way to design a car, and responsible for several delays of the Veyron. But they did it. It does go faster than 400, it does have more than 1000 hp, and, apart from minor details, looks very much like the prototype. Nice, but for many petrolheads the very reason to dismiss the „huge bug“. They don't want a car born out of a marketing strategy. They want a car to be as good as it can be in its segment. Therefor, they do not like the Veyron, simply because it was made to fill a gap on the market, and not to be a good car.
Claim #3: figures don't mean anything
„Figures are something to be printed on paper, what the car can actually do on the road counts.“. You will find this statement proven if you ask people that do not only care to get from A to B, but how to get there. When you consider buying a car, and you'll have several contestants on hand, all coming along with their respective figures. Nice, but does that tell you which one's best? No. So ideally, you'll find yourself test-driving all those cars. After that, you can be pretty sure you will know which one is the one for you. But how does that relate to the Veyron? Well ... what has the press done with the car? What does the press do with every car? Quantify it. With figures. And the reason is understandable. The majority of readers can not test-drive the cars they read about, they'll most likely ever see them in real life at all. Therefor, and who can blame them, the majority of readers measures the quality of a car by its numbers. And the press gives the readers what they want. In this very case, the numbers look astonishing, because they are. And that is the very problem. What do you do to get your magazine sold? You impress people with words like „fastest ever“, „record beaten“, groundbreaking“ and so on, you get the picture. Might impress the average reader, but scares off the petrolhead, because astonishing numbers usually turn out to cloak a foul product.
Claim #4: 1001 horsepower are ridiculous for an 8.0l W16 quad-turbo
Another argument against it is that the Veyron just doesn't have enough power. But how can over 1000 horsepower be not enough? Well, how do you measure if a car has enough power? Right: by looking at the way the engine generates it. There are different ways to do that, such as a lot of displacement, high revs and forced induction. Of course you can also combine these methods, but let's stick to the basics here and how. A number to measure the amount of horsepower is to divide the number by the size of the displacement, to get a figure in horsepower/liter (hp/l). We'll get back to that in a minute.
The way of displacement is known to be the way US car companies gather horses in an engine bay. Take the current Chevrolet Corvette Z06 for example, which generates over 500 horsepower from the enormous amount of 7 liters of displacement, spread over 8 cylinders. The amount of hp/l calculates to 71,4, which is not much for an engine. This is typical for displacement powerplants and by no means a disadvantage. You can be pretty sure the engine will last a long time and generate a lot of torque (which can not be wrong, can it?). Break that number down to an average two-liter four-pot, and you end up with 142,8 horses, which you'll rather find in your neighbours Passat than in your bosses Corvette. So what's been done here is simple upsizing – raise the displacement, and the power will come by itself.
The second way, high revs, is not as easy. To make an engine ready for high revs, you have to tweak and optimise the parts, so that thing won't explode on you in the first bend. You'll make your life easier with smaller displacements and less cylinders, due to lower friction losses and smaller masses to be moved. Honda has made a name in high-revving engines decades ago. Curious engineers took the engine out of the tiny '66 S800, a 791 cc machine with only 67 horsepower and the redline at 11,000 rpm, to see how many revs it will do to destruction. They reached the point of the destruction at 13,000 revs – the destruction of the dynamometer that is, the engine was still fine, got back into the car and lived on. With revs, you can squeeze quite a lot of power per liter out of an engine. The fabulous Honda S2000 for example, known to have a reliable machine, generates 240 horses with only two liters, equaling 120 hp/l. This is about what you get out of such an engine meant for daily road use.
Engines with forced induction will do even more. Take the famous rally duo for example: the Subaru Impeza and the Mitsubishi Evo. They easily get 280 hp from their two-liter-powerplants, upping the figure to 140 hp/l. There are even stronger versions, such as the Evo FQ400 with 400 bhp (200 hp/l !!!). And the Japanese, not exactly weary of doing crazy stuff, have squeezed 1000 and more horsepower from the famous Nissan Skylines 2,6 liter straight-six – astonishing.
Now that we know what's what, let's come back to the Veyron. An eight liter W16 engine with four turbochargers creates a mere 1001 horsepower. Sounds like a lot, but only equals 125 hp/l, even less than a standard Evo or an Impreza. Why, if they had this enormous engine, all the time and the money in the world and the intent to blow the automotive world away, did they only generate 125 horsepower per liter from that thing? That's ridiculous!
Claim #5: the enormous weight of the thing kills all the fun
After the seemingly endless paragraph about power, you'll be happy to know we'll be done here in a minute. Simple physics: the heavier an object is, the more power you need to move it, and the more it will try to maintain course once it is on the move (also known as mass inertia). The statement „weight spoils everything“ therefor couldn't be all-too-true. You will have to cope with weight when accelerating, when breaking and especially when going round corners. Weight is no good for a performance car then. And the Veyron is heavy, almost reaching 1.900 kilograms.The tiny Elise only brings up a scanty „860“ on the scale, and it has grown fat, for its own relations at least. Sure, you can do a lot to a car with special tires, clever suspensions and electronic gizmos. But can you hide almost two tons in a vehicle that's supposed to compete with the worlds finest?
Claim #6: comfort is wrong for a drivers car
Comfort is nice ... in a limousine. A true drivers car won't have comfort ... shouldn't offer comfort in the first place. If you want comfort, buy yourself a nice limousine. It disconnects you from driving and the outside world, so you can make yourself at home. A drivers car is meant to connect you to the outside world, so you can experience the event of driving in full effect. The conclusion of the petrolhead is obvious: the Veyron offers comfort, therefor it can be no drivers car, therefor it can not be a good car – period!
Claim #7: the competition has been there already
As I said somewhere above, petrolheads usually expect a car to be born out of the wish to make the perfect driving machine. And it's not like we wouldn't have such machines. Take a Ferrari Enzo, a Porsche Carrera GT and the old, but still fabulous McLaren F1 for example. Or the one that's traded as the bugs #1 competitor: the Koenigsegg CCX. 806 bhp out of a twin-supercharged V8 propel 1180 kilograms – not exactly what you'd call underpowered. That is how you make a true driving machine with endless grunt. The competition, even if it lacks in some figures, is considered to be up there, and even beat the Veyron with ease. So what do we need that ugly thing for anyway?
Additionally, there still is the bunch that does meet the figures. Talk about Hennessey, who screwed a couple of turbos onto a Dodge Viper and got out 1000 horsepower long before the Veyron was even sold. The price of that car is a joke compared to the Veyron – or the Veyron is the joke, whichever way you prefer. So, engines met the figures before, and cars were faster on a track before. What was the purpose of that Veyron thing again?[/SIZE]
Claim #8: the Veyron is no drivers car, but no GT either
Okay, with that weight and that power, the Veyron surely isn't the replacement of an Elise. Offering a whole lot of comfort, it must be a GT then. It only has two seats, but thats perfectly acceptable for a GT car. If you get a four-seater, the ones in the rear don't work anyways, at least not for longer journeys. But the thing is ... there's no luggage space in the Veyron. And I'm sorry, but where would you go that you don't need luggage at all? You can go to the mall to buy a magazine, but that's hardly a journey, is it? So if it's n ot a drivers car, and no GT either, what the heck is thing thing for?
Claim #9: are you blind? The thing is damn ugly!
I intentionally put this last in the long line of problems, because this chapter is special. I've made some fair points so far on why the Veyron isn't good. Another argument of Veyron-haters against the car is that it just isn't pretty. But that one I simply can not count as valid, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefor, liking or not liking a car because of what it looks like can not be an argument for and against the car, because it is a matter of personal taste, which can not be discussed. You like the looks of this, you don't like the looks of that, but you simply can not be wrong by definition.Therefor, we will rule „looks“ out of this discussion, and there will be no argumentation against this whatsoever.
So, it isn't looking good for the Bugatti, failing on so many levels. But is it all true? Are the petrolheads, the ones that should know, right on this? Obviously, they are not. I mean how would this be a rant if we agree on everything? But instead of just saying that you Veyron haters are a bunch of unemployed naggers and uninformed 12-year-olds, I'll actually explain in detail what I'm on about. Of course, you can disagree with my views on things, but you'll have a hard time proving me wrong, because I will present simple facts, arguments and conclusions. So, let's get cracking, shall we?
Claim #1: the Veyron is useless, noone needs such a car
Answer: if so, who needs any supercar for that matter?
Well, let's say that you need a car in life for a start. One can argue that most people don't really need a car, it just makes their life easier. But for arguments sake, let's say that a car is a basic item. But what kind of car do you need? Well, as you need to get from A to B, you'd be fine with a Smart. Okay, you probably have a family, then a VW Polo will do. Or you need some more space, maybe for bigger people, maybe for transporting goods, get a Passat. It will cover 98% of what you'll ever do with a car, if you don't live in the mountains or on the beach that is.
So much for what you need. If you add „I want to have fun, too!“ to the equation, the question of what you need becomes invalid, simply because „fun“ redefines the question of which car to get. At the same time, you lose the „noone needs that thing!“-argument against the Veyron. If that car is your definition of fun and you have the appropriate amount of money, how can it be more wrong than let's say a McLaren SLR?
Claim #2: the reason for making the car is just plain wrong
Answer: does a car have to have a proper history if the result is alright?
As stated before, the reason for a car to be born can be pretty much everything. The Ford GT 40 for example, the record-breaking Le Mans-winner, was made because Ford failed to buy the badge that had dominated Le Mans the years before – Ferrari. So Ford made a car to win a race because they couldn't buy the winner car. And that's a proper reason for an admittedly great piece of car history?
Back to the Veyron. Yes, it was born as a marketing gag, to bring Bugatti back with a big bang. Obviously, they did that. On the other hand, this car actually exists, and if you look at the reviews, you'll learn that it works surprisingly well, despite its intricacies during development. So, I ask you petrolheads, how is this car only a marketing statement, if there have been brilliant cars made for worse reasons, and if this thing actually works on the road and on the track? This isn't just a showroom shell, this is a real, properly functional car which is better than the majority of available cars in multiple ways. That's more than filling a gap in the market.
Claim #3: figures don't mean anything
Answer: the figures really don't mean anything, but this car is more than its figures
I totally agree with you guys, that figures may impress the average newspaper reader or the ones with little knowlegde, but at the end of the day, I want to know what the thing gets onto the road. And there's nothing wrong with what the Veyron delivers. I mean what do we have here? It is a car with 4WD, 1001 metric horsepower that does over 250 mph tops, and still, it goes around corners with dignity and without killing you in the third bend. The problem is that the figures were used way too often and in way too many ways, simply to impress the impressible. It is obvious that every petrolhead will think of this car as a paper tiger, looking nice in the picture, but being capable of nothing. But the truth is that it does perform. So please, forget about the figures and just accept that the Veyron is good for what it is.
Claim #4: 1001 horsepower are ridiculous for a 8l W16 quad-turbo
Answer: there's a reason it „only“ has 1001 hp
Ok, so what about that „tiny“ amount of power from the enormous engine? You know the BMW 335i, right? Then you know that it has a twin-turbocharged inline six. The funny thing is that this doesn't behave like a turbo in the classic sense of way, for one simple reason: it is not supposed to.
I quote the leader of engine development, Klaus Borgmann, for this one:“We wanted to have the specs of a medium-sized V8, combined with the efficiency and – most importantly – the smoothness of our inline six.“. So, the goal was not to make a turbocharged BMW, the goal was to imitate a bigger engine with a smaller one. That said, it is obvious that you do not always use forced induction to get maximum power, rather than getting the specific characteristics you want.
And it's like that with the Veyron. Of course, you could have gotten more power out of that car. You could get more power out of almost any car. But does the fact that you can imply that you have to? Let's face it, 1001 horsepower is enough, actually it is much more than what you'd need in a drivers car (remember the Elise). You even have advantages with making such „smoothly-blown“ engines: they are easier to handle. If you go for peak power, you easily end up with edgy characteristics. Would that fit a car like the Veyron? Would you want to drive a car with 1001 horsepower that suddenly finds maximum boost in the middle of a corner and spins out on you? I surely wouldn't. Therefor, I think they did the right thing and gave this superfast GT a supersmooth, yet very capable engine. Additionally, this engine will presumably last much longer and need less servicing than any small powerplant pushed to the max.
Claim #5: the enormous weight of the thing kills all the fun
Answer: weight does kill the fun, but this thing still is good
For this subject, I'd like to quote some reviews of the Veyron. I could tell you all day that it goes well around corners, but I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe me, cause I could tell you anything. So how about the review from Autocar?
This car handles; really handles. And boy does it stop and steer incisively as well. If you really start to lean on it there s a whiff of understeer engineered into the chassis to prevent the tail from taking over; eye-watering body control, too, which is astounding considering how much mass there is to keep in check. What s most impressive, however, is the pure composure it has, even over difficult surfaces.
... or how about revlovers?
The handling of the car is the second most surprising aspect of this machine. The car’s "over weight" has been an issue widely discussed, however astonishingly the car feels agile happy to turn in and is definitely a blast on country roads. It always stays stable and very neutral through long sweeping turns. Even when turns tighten up, the car seems to carry at least 500 kilos less than it actually does. On country roads one begins to learn that the car offers extremely high grip levels which one is unable to be fully exploit on public roads due to legal and safety issues.
Having tested the car intensively on the Hockenheim Ring, my admiration for the car grew even more. It is tremendously quick, absolutely stable under all conditions. There is no sign of nervousness, on the contrary the car gives you so much confidence that it is relatively easy to quickly find its limits. Its traction out of tighter turns is mind-blowing. Switch off ESP and discover its absolute neutral behaviour sliding over all four wheels when accelerating out of turns. However, when using the brakes for a few laps on the limit one starts noticing the incredible speed with which you approach turns and the sheer mass which is carried around. In comparison to other supercars, the brake needs to compensate for the huge speed advantage and for the big weight disadvantage, which one starts feeling after a few flying laps. The reason for this small let down is that brake cooling has not been optimised for track use in order to achieve the aerodynamic efficiency needed to reach its proven top speed.
And here's the latest one, taken from the german AutoBild Sportscars. Now before you say „Ewwwwww, of course the Germans will prefer the Veyron, it is german!“ – they put it up against other german cars, such as the Audi R8 and the Porsche 911 GT3 RS.
Even tiny dabs of the throttle are countered with revs shooting up as fast as a lightning – unusual for a turbo engine. The ultra-precise and super-smoothly responding steering also outperforms the other contestants. In the Bugatti, you have a feeling of a culture of the mechanic which you won't even get in the fine Aston Martin [DB9].
Half a kilometer down the road, they Veyron already plays its dynamic trumps. Its hefty weight seems to have volatilised with the exhaust fumes, due to the snappy reactions to the steering. The DSG hands on the eligible ratios impalpably and instantaneously, the suspension masters even the bigger creases in the road with ease. Due to the superb brake capabilities and the immediate handling, you try to remind yourself of the weight of 1888 kilograms in disbelief.
(...)
Then [after overtaking everything else], the Bugatti appears in the rear view mirror of the Porsche [GT3 RS]. A 20 second head start has been granted to the RS-tamer. With the boxer sawing like a hornet-hive, the GT3 RS bombs down the mountain pass. The explosive reactions to the accelerator, the exquisit steering, the mighty brakes and the exemplarily little chassis movements don't suprise, but the offered sleekness does. The GT3 RS comes close to the [Audi] R8, but offers more front-end grip and much more thrust on the straights. The missing A/C in the car saves 35 kilograms, which is the weight the fully-challenged driver sweats out.
In an instant, the Bugatti is on it, appearing from nowhere like a dark-blue rocket, burning a pair of holes into the head of the man in front with its xenon headlamps. The roads gets twistier, the sports tires of the GT3 RS have reached the perfect temperature, biting hard into the tarmac. Without any flimsiness, the optional carbon-ceramic brake annihilates the tractionous sprints before every switchback. But it's hopeless. Like glued to the back, the rear view mirror-busting Veyron stalks its prey. A short straight comes up, the boxer revs out its motorsport-derived soul in third gear. With a short swoosh the Bugatti ploughs past as if the Porsche is standing still, and shrinks out of sight like a shirt washed too hot.
So, it seems that the engineers managed to hide the enormous weight of the Veyron pretty well, as it can stay with a Porsche GT3 RS. Let's be honest, even if you don't feel it, almost two tons are still out of the question for a true sports car. But the Veyron was never meant to be the new benchmark in annihilating laptimes on a track. It was meant to be a superfast, luxure vehicle, and it does that and is very fast on a track. So what's wrong with that?
Claim #6: comfort is wrong for a drivers car
Answer: if the car still gives you a good amount of feel, what's wrong with comfort?
Okay, close your eyes and imagine. You're in your Lotus Exige S, bombing down a mountain pass. You're all alone on the road, the weather is perfect, the supercharger sings its song of revs and compression – excellent! But this is just one moment in the life of you and the car. Now imagine you're on a long drive, it's raining badly, despite the ventilation set to the max all the windows are fogged. You drive an unknown stretch of road, with cars all around you. There's a bend coming up, which suddenly sharpens and doesn't have the best of road surfaces. Suddenly, you find yourself countersteering for a bit to catch the rear end you almost lost there. It's this moment you're glad you already have some experience with this car. But there's more. You also wish it'd not be as harsh, it'd have an A/C, and probably some other little helpers. But why? You love drivers cars, and you're definitely sitting in one. So what happened?
Well, a drivers car is a great thing. But unfortunately, there is real life. And in real life situations, drivers cars do not work. What you need in real life is power when you want it, but comfort when you need it. And guess which car belongs to those who offer it? Right – the Bugatti Veyron. It may not work on a track nearly as good as an Elise, or whatever drivers car you throw at it. It may not give you the thrills and spills, the eruptive power of a Lamborghini or the fabulous screaming of a Ferrari. And those things are great when the moment is right. But when it isn't, these things will slowly eat you alive. And it's that moment when you'll be thankful for a slightly number and less emotional feeling a Veyron will give you, cause you really don't need it most of the time. Still, the Bugatti is far beyond any S-Class experience in terms of feel.
Claim #7: the competition has been there already
Answer: no, it hasn't
But how can I say it hasn't, when I said above that they have? That actually is very simple. The competition has been there, but not everywhere at the same time. There were or are cars that have more power, cars that are lighter, cars that grip better, cars that drive better, and so on. But there has never been a combination of those ablities in one car that outperformed the Veyron. If you put on the right benchmarks, you can outperform every car with pretty much every other car. But overall, you will find that the Veyron is unique in what it does at the same time.
Claim #8: the Veyron is no drivers car, but no GT either
Answer: ... and it doesn't have to be
The Veyron certainly is not a drivers car. It may drive surprisingly well, but if you are after pure driving experience, you'll rather get something between an Elise and an Enzo, depending on your wallet and the grade of lunacy. So obviously, the Veyron is a GT, is it? Well, not quite. What is a GT then? A GT, simply put, is a „grand tourer“, a car that enables you to make a journey in comfort, with luggage and perferrably not alone. And it should have enough power to not make you think „I need more grunt here.“. But the Veyron isn't that either. It does offer comfort and two seats, but virtually no luggage space. And, let's face it, who needs 1001 horsepower for a journey? Don't you think 400 or 500 will do? So why not get an Aston Martin DB9, a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti or even a McLaren Mercedes SLR? Those are the ultimate GTs, much better than the Veyron in that department.
That leaves us with the Bugatti pretty much being nothing. Not a drivers car, and not a proper GT. So what is that thing, what is it for? Well ... the Veyron simply is the Veyron. It was never meant to be the new performance benchmark, neither did anyone say it is the ultimate GT. On the other hand, does a car have to meet one of those categories to be a good car? Isn't that marketing thinking?
Why not just accept the car for what it does, and let's be honest, it does those things pretty well. If I could have any car and I were to buy the ultimate drivers car, I'd get myself a McLaren F1. If I were to get the ultimate GT, I'd most likely get the SLR. But if I could have any car, even for daily use, hell, I'd still want to have that Bugatti. The other cars may outperform it in certain ways, but still, you can get almost unlimited performance in relative comfort. If you can live without comfort in a drivers car, how can you say you can not live with the Veyron because it has no boot? A car not having certain abilities doesn't disqualify it as being good.
Final claim: yeah whatever, I just hate the thing!
Answer: the difference between taste, opinion and fact
This probably is the most vital part to consider for all you Veyron haters. I have read and taken part in countless discussions about the Veyron. And despite the different purposes of the forums these discussions may have taken part in, I have come across similar arguments against the car everywhere. I have always stated that those are not valid arguments, which has resulted in flaming and calling me biased towards the Bugatti because of my country of origin – Germany. That's the easy way, but I want to explain some things here to show that several arguments actually are not valid for a simple reason.
The majority of people fails to separate taste, opinion and fact, which is just plain wrong. But lets start at the beginning: taste. Taste is something you can not discuss. You may argue that some people simply don't have it, but you only think so because theirs is so different from yours. Or they just care less about attributes like looks. Whichever way you put it, there is no right, and no wrong taste. That said, it is perfectly okay to not like the Veyron because of your taste. Noone can argue with that, it is your right to feel that way, and it is absolutely fine.
However, because you don't like that thing, you don't have to justify yourself by saying that the car is rubbish. There's a vital mistake in that concept. You don't have to justify taste, which simply means that you don't have to talk down to things you don't like to make people understand you. Therefor, you can say that the Veyron is a good car, and you still don't like it, there's nothing wrong with that. I for instance don't like Michael Schumacher a bit, but I still say he is an excellent driver. To deny that would be on the same level as saying that the Veyron is a bad car.
Opinion and fact are connected with each other. Everybody has opinions, hopefully based on facts. It's okay not to have an opinion on something, simply because you haven't made up your mind about it yet or don't know the facts. In terms of the Veyron, I often learned that people refuse to believe facts such as maximum speed, acceleration times or cornering capabilities. It is obvious that you can not base a proper opinion on that. Therefor, peoples opinion on the car simply were that it is bad. And it is very hard to discuss with such people. However, everybody that gets into a serious Veyron discussion should know that the figures were approved in great extent. The maximum speed was done, the acceleration was done within two tenth, and several independent people stated that it does corner very well. Therefor, everybodys opinion on this car should be positive.And I can not stress enough that you can have a positive opinion about the Veyron and still not like it.
So what have we established here? I claim I have proven the Bugatti Veyron is a good car for what it is, that is is fast on the road and on the track, that it is comfortable (which is fine), and that there is nothing wrong with the way it was born. Now, you are still very welcome with not liking this thing, you are welcome with not liking its looks, and you are welcome with choosing another car over this, if you are ever given the choice that is. Still, I hopefully proved that it is not the bad car so many people claim it is.
/rant
The 'Veyron-rant' rant
It is the most-discussed supercar of the last years - the Bugatti Veyron. Advertised for a seemingly endless period, it was finally released to the public in 2005. Since then, press and people have gone crazy over the thing. Surprisingly, there is a very reasonable number of people that do not like this car, some even hate it with all their heart. You would think that at least the petrolheads are happy about a 1001 horsepower monster, if it may not play the leading part in their wet dreams. But no. Surprisingly, you'll even find more haters within these crowds than among the average newspaper reader, who has read about the Veyron somehwere sometime. But why do car lovers dislike this thing so much? Why isn't one of the fastest and most powerful production cars of all time everybodys darling? An analysis of the situation to give some insight...
Claim #1: the Veyron is useless, noone needs such a car
I'm sure all of you have bought something you didn't really need at least once in your life, you just wanted to have it and were willing to spend the money it cost. We all know such items, and the more we want them, the more money we are willing to spend. On a car for example. There are amounts of money a true petrolhead would be willing to spend on a car. Like Corvette money. But then there's Porsche money, where the fun has already stopped if you're not pretty rich. Or Ferrari money for that matter. Or Lamborghini. Then there's the nasty stuff, such as the big ones from the big names in business, along with McLarens and Paganis. After that, you get into real estate property. And I'm not talking about some nasty flat, I'm talking houses – big houses. And then, there's the Bugatti Veyron. They charge you 1,309,000 Euros for it. For a car! That equals eight and a half Ferrari F430. So does it go 8.5 times as quick as an F430? No! Does it look 8.5 times as good as an F430? No! Is it 8.5 times as comfortable, as practical or as spacious as an F430? Surely not! Who on earth is supposed to buy this thing then, and why?
Claim #2: the reason for making the car is just plain wrong
There are bizarre stories of how cars were created. There were cars made out of spite, cars made out of love and cars made out of the most stupid idea you could think of. Successful cars that is. When it comes to performance machines, it usually is a thought of building the ideal vehicle in terms of driving pleasure. Take the Lotus Elise for example, the best-known benchmark of light performance cars. Four cylinders and something between 134 for the standard Elise and 189 bhp for the Exige S are more than enough to propel the tiny insect from 0-60 mph in 5.8 seconds – worst case – and to show presumably far superior opponents what's what on the racetrack. You'll have a hard time to find a true petrolhead that doesn't love or at least respect the Elise for that.
So let's take a look at how the Veyron was born. It all began with the german VAG group buying the name Bugatti in 1998. Responsible for that and other happenings was a man called Ferdinand Piech, executive chairman of the company from 1993 to 2002. Although he has done good to the company, several of his decisions have been discussed from the beginning. So has his idea of reviving the name Bugatti with a groundbreaking vehicle. The idea itself is, but the nasty circumstances cost VAG loads of money, time and countless manhours. Why? Because Piech simply strapped the numbers down, not caring how they are archieved, not asking if they can be archieved at all: more than 400 km/h (250 mph), more than 1000 horsepower, and the looks of the 1999 prototype - period! Not really the way to design a car, and responsible for several delays of the Veyron. But they did it. It does go faster than 400, it does have more than 1000 hp, and, apart from minor details, looks very much like the prototype. Nice, but for many petrolheads the very reason to dismiss the „huge bug“. They don't want a car born out of a marketing strategy. They want a car to be as good as it can be in its segment. Therefor, they do not like the Veyron, simply because it was made to fill a gap on the market, and not to be a good car.
Claim #3: figures don't mean anything
„Figures are something to be printed on paper, what the car can actually do on the road counts.“. You will find this statement proven if you ask people that do not only care to get from A to B, but how to get there. When you consider buying a car, and you'll have several contestants on hand, all coming along with their respective figures. Nice, but does that tell you which one's best? No. So ideally, you'll find yourself test-driving all those cars. After that, you can be pretty sure you will know which one is the one for you. But how does that relate to the Veyron? Well ... what has the press done with the car? What does the press do with every car? Quantify it. With figures. And the reason is understandable. The majority of readers can not test-drive the cars they read about, they'll most likely ever see them in real life at all. Therefor, and who can blame them, the majority of readers measures the quality of a car by its numbers. And the press gives the readers what they want. In this very case, the numbers look astonishing, because they are. And that is the very problem. What do you do to get your magazine sold? You impress people with words like „fastest ever“, „record beaten“, groundbreaking“ and so on, you get the picture. Might impress the average reader, but scares off the petrolhead, because astonishing numbers usually turn out to cloak a foul product.
Claim #4: 1001 horsepower are ridiculous for an 8.0l W16 quad-turbo
Another argument against it is that the Veyron just doesn't have enough power. But how can over 1000 horsepower be not enough? Well, how do you measure if a car has enough power? Right: by looking at the way the engine generates it. There are different ways to do that, such as a lot of displacement, high revs and forced induction. Of course you can also combine these methods, but let's stick to the basics here and how. A number to measure the amount of horsepower is to divide the number by the size of the displacement, to get a figure in horsepower/liter (hp/l). We'll get back to that in a minute.
The way of displacement is known to be the way US car companies gather horses in an engine bay. Take the current Chevrolet Corvette Z06 for example, which generates over 500 horsepower from the enormous amount of 7 liters of displacement, spread over 8 cylinders. The amount of hp/l calculates to 71,4, which is not much for an engine. This is typical for displacement powerplants and by no means a disadvantage. You can be pretty sure the engine will last a long time and generate a lot of torque (which can not be wrong, can it?). Break that number down to an average two-liter four-pot, and you end up with 142,8 horses, which you'll rather find in your neighbours Passat than in your bosses Corvette. So what's been done here is simple upsizing – raise the displacement, and the power will come by itself.
The second way, high revs, is not as easy. To make an engine ready for high revs, you have to tweak and optimise the parts, so that thing won't explode on you in the first bend. You'll make your life easier with smaller displacements and less cylinders, due to lower friction losses and smaller masses to be moved. Honda has made a name in high-revving engines decades ago. Curious engineers took the engine out of the tiny '66 S800, a 791 cc machine with only 67 horsepower and the redline at 11,000 rpm, to see how many revs it will do to destruction. They reached the point of the destruction at 13,000 revs – the destruction of the dynamometer that is, the engine was still fine, got back into the car and lived on. With revs, you can squeeze quite a lot of power per liter out of an engine. The fabulous Honda S2000 for example, known to have a reliable machine, generates 240 horses with only two liters, equaling 120 hp/l. This is about what you get out of such an engine meant for daily road use.
Engines with forced induction will do even more. Take the famous rally duo for example: the Subaru Impeza and the Mitsubishi Evo. They easily get 280 hp from their two-liter-powerplants, upping the figure to 140 hp/l. There are even stronger versions, such as the Evo FQ400 with 400 bhp (200 hp/l !!!). And the Japanese, not exactly weary of doing crazy stuff, have squeezed 1000 and more horsepower from the famous Nissan Skylines 2,6 liter straight-six – astonishing.
Now that we know what's what, let's come back to the Veyron. An eight liter W16 engine with four turbochargers creates a mere 1001 horsepower. Sounds like a lot, but only equals 125 hp/l, even less than a standard Evo or an Impreza. Why, if they had this enormous engine, all the time and the money in the world and the intent to blow the automotive world away, did they only generate 125 horsepower per liter from that thing? That's ridiculous!
Claim #5: the enormous weight of the thing kills all the fun
After the seemingly endless paragraph about power, you'll be happy to know we'll be done here in a minute. Simple physics: the heavier an object is, the more power you need to move it, and the more it will try to maintain course once it is on the move (also known as mass inertia). The statement „weight spoils everything“ therefor couldn't be all-too-true. You will have to cope with weight when accelerating, when breaking and especially when going round corners. Weight is no good for a performance car then. And the Veyron is heavy, almost reaching 1.900 kilograms.The tiny Elise only brings up a scanty „860“ on the scale, and it has grown fat, for its own relations at least. Sure, you can do a lot to a car with special tires, clever suspensions and electronic gizmos. But can you hide almost two tons in a vehicle that's supposed to compete with the worlds finest?
Claim #6: comfort is wrong for a drivers car
Comfort is nice ... in a limousine. A true drivers car won't have comfort ... shouldn't offer comfort in the first place. If you want comfort, buy yourself a nice limousine. It disconnects you from driving and the outside world, so you can make yourself at home. A drivers car is meant to connect you to the outside world, so you can experience the event of driving in full effect. The conclusion of the petrolhead is obvious: the Veyron offers comfort, therefor it can be no drivers car, therefor it can not be a good car – period!
Claim #7: the competition has been there already
As I said somewhere above, petrolheads usually expect a car to be born out of the wish to make the perfect driving machine. And it's not like we wouldn't have such machines. Take a Ferrari Enzo, a Porsche Carrera GT and the old, but still fabulous McLaren F1 for example. Or the one that's traded as the bugs #1 competitor: the Koenigsegg CCX. 806 bhp out of a twin-supercharged V8 propel 1180 kilograms – not exactly what you'd call underpowered. That is how you make a true driving machine with endless grunt. The competition, even if it lacks in some figures, is considered to be up there, and even beat the Veyron with ease. So what do we need that ugly thing for anyway?
Additionally, there still is the bunch that does meet the figures. Talk about Hennessey, who screwed a couple of turbos onto a Dodge Viper and got out 1000 horsepower long before the Veyron was even sold. The price of that car is a joke compared to the Veyron – or the Veyron is the joke, whichever way you prefer. So, engines met the figures before, and cars were faster on a track before. What was the purpose of that Veyron thing again?[/SIZE]
Claim #8: the Veyron is no drivers car, but no GT either
Okay, with that weight and that power, the Veyron surely isn't the replacement of an Elise. Offering a whole lot of comfort, it must be a GT then. It only has two seats, but thats perfectly acceptable for a GT car. If you get a four-seater, the ones in the rear don't work anyways, at least not for longer journeys. But the thing is ... there's no luggage space in the Veyron. And I'm sorry, but where would you go that you don't need luggage at all? You can go to the mall to buy a magazine, but that's hardly a journey, is it? So if it's n ot a drivers car, and no GT either, what the heck is thing thing for?
Claim #9: are you blind? The thing is damn ugly!
I intentionally put this last in the long line of problems, because this chapter is special. I've made some fair points so far on why the Veyron isn't good. Another argument of Veyron-haters against the car is that it just isn't pretty. But that one I simply can not count as valid, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Therefor, liking or not liking a car because of what it looks like can not be an argument for and against the car, because it is a matter of personal taste, which can not be discussed. You like the looks of this, you don't like the looks of that, but you simply can not be wrong by definition.Therefor, we will rule „looks“ out of this discussion, and there will be no argumentation against this whatsoever.
So, it isn't looking good for the Bugatti, failing on so many levels. But is it all true? Are the petrolheads, the ones that should know, right on this? Obviously, they are not. I mean how would this be a rant if we agree on everything? But instead of just saying that you Veyron haters are a bunch of unemployed naggers and uninformed 12-year-olds, I'll actually explain in detail what I'm on about. Of course, you can disagree with my views on things, but you'll have a hard time proving me wrong, because I will present simple facts, arguments and conclusions. So, let's get cracking, shall we?
Claim #1: the Veyron is useless, noone needs such a car
Answer: if so, who needs any supercar for that matter?
Well, let's say that you need a car in life for a start. One can argue that most people don't really need a car, it just makes their life easier. But for arguments sake, let's say that a car is a basic item. But what kind of car do you need? Well, as you need to get from A to B, you'd be fine with a Smart. Okay, you probably have a family, then a VW Polo will do. Or you need some more space, maybe for bigger people, maybe for transporting goods, get a Passat. It will cover 98% of what you'll ever do with a car, if you don't live in the mountains or on the beach that is.
So much for what you need. If you add „I want to have fun, too!“ to the equation, the question of what you need becomes invalid, simply because „fun“ redefines the question of which car to get. At the same time, you lose the „noone needs that thing!“-argument against the Veyron. If that car is your definition of fun and you have the appropriate amount of money, how can it be more wrong than let's say a McLaren SLR?
Claim #2: the reason for making the car is just plain wrong
Answer: does a car have to have a proper history if the result is alright?
As stated before, the reason for a car to be born can be pretty much everything. The Ford GT 40 for example, the record-breaking Le Mans-winner, was made because Ford failed to buy the badge that had dominated Le Mans the years before – Ferrari. So Ford made a car to win a race because they couldn't buy the winner car. And that's a proper reason for an admittedly great piece of car history?
Back to the Veyron. Yes, it was born as a marketing gag, to bring Bugatti back with a big bang. Obviously, they did that. On the other hand, this car actually exists, and if you look at the reviews, you'll learn that it works surprisingly well, despite its intricacies during development. So, I ask you petrolheads, how is this car only a marketing statement, if there have been brilliant cars made for worse reasons, and if this thing actually works on the road and on the track? This isn't just a showroom shell, this is a real, properly functional car which is better than the majority of available cars in multiple ways. That's more than filling a gap in the market.
Claim #3: figures don't mean anything
Answer: the figures really don't mean anything, but this car is more than its figures
I totally agree with you guys, that figures may impress the average newspaper reader or the ones with little knowlegde, but at the end of the day, I want to know what the thing gets onto the road. And there's nothing wrong with what the Veyron delivers. I mean what do we have here? It is a car with 4WD, 1001 metric horsepower that does over 250 mph tops, and still, it goes around corners with dignity and without killing you in the third bend. The problem is that the figures were used way too often and in way too many ways, simply to impress the impressible. It is obvious that every petrolhead will think of this car as a paper tiger, looking nice in the picture, but being capable of nothing. But the truth is that it does perform. So please, forget about the figures and just accept that the Veyron is good for what it is.
Claim #4: 1001 horsepower are ridiculous for a 8l W16 quad-turbo
Answer: there's a reason it „only“ has 1001 hp
Ok, so what about that „tiny“ amount of power from the enormous engine? You know the BMW 335i, right? Then you know that it has a twin-turbocharged inline six. The funny thing is that this doesn't behave like a turbo in the classic sense of way, for one simple reason: it is not supposed to.
I quote the leader of engine development, Klaus Borgmann, for this one:“We wanted to have the specs of a medium-sized V8, combined with the efficiency and – most importantly – the smoothness of our inline six.“. So, the goal was not to make a turbocharged BMW, the goal was to imitate a bigger engine with a smaller one. That said, it is obvious that you do not always use forced induction to get maximum power, rather than getting the specific characteristics you want.
And it's like that with the Veyron. Of course, you could have gotten more power out of that car. You could get more power out of almost any car. But does the fact that you can imply that you have to? Let's face it, 1001 horsepower is enough, actually it is much more than what you'd need in a drivers car (remember the Elise). You even have advantages with making such „smoothly-blown“ engines: they are easier to handle. If you go for peak power, you easily end up with edgy characteristics. Would that fit a car like the Veyron? Would you want to drive a car with 1001 horsepower that suddenly finds maximum boost in the middle of a corner and spins out on you? I surely wouldn't. Therefor, I think they did the right thing and gave this superfast GT a supersmooth, yet very capable engine. Additionally, this engine will presumably last much longer and need less servicing than any small powerplant pushed to the max.
Claim #5: the enormous weight of the thing kills all the fun
Answer: weight does kill the fun, but this thing still is good
For this subject, I'd like to quote some reviews of the Veyron. I could tell you all day that it goes well around corners, but I am pretty sure you wouldn't believe me, cause I could tell you anything. So how about the review from Autocar?
This car handles; really handles. And boy does it stop and steer incisively as well. If you really start to lean on it there s a whiff of understeer engineered into the chassis to prevent the tail from taking over; eye-watering body control, too, which is astounding considering how much mass there is to keep in check. What s most impressive, however, is the pure composure it has, even over difficult surfaces.
... or how about revlovers?
The handling of the car is the second most surprising aspect of this machine. The car’s "over weight" has been an issue widely discussed, however astonishingly the car feels agile happy to turn in and is definitely a blast on country roads. It always stays stable and very neutral through long sweeping turns. Even when turns tighten up, the car seems to carry at least 500 kilos less than it actually does. On country roads one begins to learn that the car offers extremely high grip levels which one is unable to be fully exploit on public roads due to legal and safety issues.
Having tested the car intensively on the Hockenheim Ring, my admiration for the car grew even more. It is tremendously quick, absolutely stable under all conditions. There is no sign of nervousness, on the contrary the car gives you so much confidence that it is relatively easy to quickly find its limits. Its traction out of tighter turns is mind-blowing. Switch off ESP and discover its absolute neutral behaviour sliding over all four wheels when accelerating out of turns. However, when using the brakes for a few laps on the limit one starts noticing the incredible speed with which you approach turns and the sheer mass which is carried around. In comparison to other supercars, the brake needs to compensate for the huge speed advantage and for the big weight disadvantage, which one starts feeling after a few flying laps. The reason for this small let down is that brake cooling has not been optimised for track use in order to achieve the aerodynamic efficiency needed to reach its proven top speed.
And here's the latest one, taken from the german AutoBild Sportscars. Now before you say „Ewwwwww, of course the Germans will prefer the Veyron, it is german!“ – they put it up against other german cars, such as the Audi R8 and the Porsche 911 GT3 RS.
Even tiny dabs of the throttle are countered with revs shooting up as fast as a lightning – unusual for a turbo engine. The ultra-precise and super-smoothly responding steering also outperforms the other contestants. In the Bugatti, you have a feeling of a culture of the mechanic which you won't even get in the fine Aston Martin [DB9].
Half a kilometer down the road, they Veyron already plays its dynamic trumps. Its hefty weight seems to have volatilised with the exhaust fumes, due to the snappy reactions to the steering. The DSG hands on the eligible ratios impalpably and instantaneously, the suspension masters even the bigger creases in the road with ease. Due to the superb brake capabilities and the immediate handling, you try to remind yourself of the weight of 1888 kilograms in disbelief.
(...)
Then [after overtaking everything else], the Bugatti appears in the rear view mirror of the Porsche [GT3 RS]. A 20 second head start has been granted to the RS-tamer. With the boxer sawing like a hornet-hive, the GT3 RS bombs down the mountain pass. The explosive reactions to the accelerator, the exquisit steering, the mighty brakes and the exemplarily little chassis movements don't suprise, but the offered sleekness does. The GT3 RS comes close to the [Audi] R8, but offers more front-end grip and much more thrust on the straights. The missing A/C in the car saves 35 kilograms, which is the weight the fully-challenged driver sweats out.
In an instant, the Bugatti is on it, appearing from nowhere like a dark-blue rocket, burning a pair of holes into the head of the man in front with its xenon headlamps. The roads gets twistier, the sports tires of the GT3 RS have reached the perfect temperature, biting hard into the tarmac. Without any flimsiness, the optional carbon-ceramic brake annihilates the tractionous sprints before every switchback. But it's hopeless. Like glued to the back, the rear view mirror-busting Veyron stalks its prey. A short straight comes up, the boxer revs out its motorsport-derived soul in third gear. With a short swoosh the Bugatti ploughs past as if the Porsche is standing still, and shrinks out of sight like a shirt washed too hot.
So, it seems that the engineers managed to hide the enormous weight of the Veyron pretty well, as it can stay with a Porsche GT3 RS. Let's be honest, even if you don't feel it, almost two tons are still out of the question for a true sports car. But the Veyron was never meant to be the new benchmark in annihilating laptimes on a track. It was meant to be a superfast, luxure vehicle, and it does that and is very fast on a track. So what's wrong with that?
Claim #6: comfort is wrong for a drivers car
Answer: if the car still gives you a good amount of feel, what's wrong with comfort?
Okay, close your eyes and imagine. You're in your Lotus Exige S, bombing down a mountain pass. You're all alone on the road, the weather is perfect, the supercharger sings its song of revs and compression – excellent! But this is just one moment in the life of you and the car. Now imagine you're on a long drive, it's raining badly, despite the ventilation set to the max all the windows are fogged. You drive an unknown stretch of road, with cars all around you. There's a bend coming up, which suddenly sharpens and doesn't have the best of road surfaces. Suddenly, you find yourself countersteering for a bit to catch the rear end you almost lost there. It's this moment you're glad you already have some experience with this car. But there's more. You also wish it'd not be as harsh, it'd have an A/C, and probably some other little helpers. But why? You love drivers cars, and you're definitely sitting in one. So what happened?
Well, a drivers car is a great thing. But unfortunately, there is real life. And in real life situations, drivers cars do not work. What you need in real life is power when you want it, but comfort when you need it. And guess which car belongs to those who offer it? Right – the Bugatti Veyron. It may not work on a track nearly as good as an Elise, or whatever drivers car you throw at it. It may not give you the thrills and spills, the eruptive power of a Lamborghini or the fabulous screaming of a Ferrari. And those things are great when the moment is right. But when it isn't, these things will slowly eat you alive. And it's that moment when you'll be thankful for a slightly number and less emotional feeling a Veyron will give you, cause you really don't need it most of the time. Still, the Bugatti is far beyond any S-Class experience in terms of feel.
Claim #7: the competition has been there already
Answer: no, it hasn't
But how can I say it hasn't, when I said above that they have? That actually is very simple. The competition has been there, but not everywhere at the same time. There were or are cars that have more power, cars that are lighter, cars that grip better, cars that drive better, and so on. But there has never been a combination of those ablities in one car that outperformed the Veyron. If you put on the right benchmarks, you can outperform every car with pretty much every other car. But overall, you will find that the Veyron is unique in what it does at the same time.
Claim #8: the Veyron is no drivers car, but no GT either
Answer: ... and it doesn't have to be
The Veyron certainly is not a drivers car. It may drive surprisingly well, but if you are after pure driving experience, you'll rather get something between an Elise and an Enzo, depending on your wallet and the grade of lunacy. So obviously, the Veyron is a GT, is it? Well, not quite. What is a GT then? A GT, simply put, is a „grand tourer“, a car that enables you to make a journey in comfort, with luggage and perferrably not alone. And it should have enough power to not make you think „I need more grunt here.“. But the Veyron isn't that either. It does offer comfort and two seats, but virtually no luggage space. And, let's face it, who needs 1001 horsepower for a journey? Don't you think 400 or 500 will do? So why not get an Aston Martin DB9, a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti or even a McLaren Mercedes SLR? Those are the ultimate GTs, much better than the Veyron in that department.
That leaves us with the Bugatti pretty much being nothing. Not a drivers car, and not a proper GT. So what is that thing, what is it for? Well ... the Veyron simply is the Veyron. It was never meant to be the new performance benchmark, neither did anyone say it is the ultimate GT. On the other hand, does a car have to meet one of those categories to be a good car? Isn't that marketing thinking?
Why not just accept the car for what it does, and let's be honest, it does those things pretty well. If I could have any car and I were to buy the ultimate drivers car, I'd get myself a McLaren F1. If I were to get the ultimate GT, I'd most likely get the SLR. But if I could have any car, even for daily use, hell, I'd still want to have that Bugatti. The other cars may outperform it in certain ways, but still, you can get almost unlimited performance in relative comfort. If you can live without comfort in a drivers car, how can you say you can not live with the Veyron because it has no boot? A car not having certain abilities doesn't disqualify it as being good.
Final claim: yeah whatever, I just hate the thing!
Answer: the difference between taste, opinion and fact
This probably is the most vital part to consider for all you Veyron haters. I have read and taken part in countless discussions about the Veyron. And despite the different purposes of the forums these discussions may have taken part in, I have come across similar arguments against the car everywhere. I have always stated that those are not valid arguments, which has resulted in flaming and calling me biased towards the Bugatti because of my country of origin – Germany. That's the easy way, but I want to explain some things here to show that several arguments actually are not valid for a simple reason.
The majority of people fails to separate taste, opinion and fact, which is just plain wrong. But lets start at the beginning: taste. Taste is something you can not discuss. You may argue that some people simply don't have it, but you only think so because theirs is so different from yours. Or they just care less about attributes like looks. Whichever way you put it, there is no right, and no wrong taste. That said, it is perfectly okay to not like the Veyron because of your taste. Noone can argue with that, it is your right to feel that way, and it is absolutely fine.
However, because you don't like that thing, you don't have to justify yourself by saying that the car is rubbish. There's a vital mistake in that concept. You don't have to justify taste, which simply means that you don't have to talk down to things you don't like to make people understand you. Therefor, you can say that the Veyron is a good car, and you still don't like it, there's nothing wrong with that. I for instance don't like Michael Schumacher a bit, but I still say he is an excellent driver. To deny that would be on the same level as saying that the Veyron is a bad car.
Opinion and fact are connected with each other. Everybody has opinions, hopefully based on facts. It's okay not to have an opinion on something, simply because you haven't made up your mind about it yet or don't know the facts. In terms of the Veyron, I often learned that people refuse to believe facts such as maximum speed, acceleration times or cornering capabilities. It is obvious that you can not base a proper opinion on that. Therefor, peoples opinion on the car simply were that it is bad. And it is very hard to discuss with such people. However, everybody that gets into a serious Veyron discussion should know that the figures were approved in great extent. The maximum speed was done, the acceleration was done within two tenth, and several independent people stated that it does corner very well. Therefor, everybodys opinion on this car should be positive.And I can not stress enough that you can have a positive opinion about the Veyron and still not like it.
So what have we established here? I claim I have proven the Bugatti Veyron is a good car for what it is, that is is fast on the road and on the track, that it is comfortable (which is fine), and that there is nothing wrong with the way it was born. Now, you are still very welcome with not liking this thing, you are welcome with not liking its looks, and you are welcome with choosing another car over this, if you are ever given the choice that is. Still, I hopefully proved that it is not the bad car so many people claim it is.
/rant
Last edited:
.
I think I hit quote just as you hit the 'save' from editing.
