Was "Veyron poll" - Then "VAG/GM discussion" - Now "Veyron discussion again"

[Joey D]

WTF, EIGHT TURBOS? Link me I've got to see this. Can you imagine the turbo lag on that thing?

It was in Hot Rod magazine last year and built for Sema

 

[JCE]

Oh I was thinking it was somekind of odd GM concept. Nevermind, that thing is hideous and pointless...and "urbanracer" stamped on the picture proves my point.

 

[Joey D]

Urban Racer is where I found the picture of it, but if you go to the Hot Rod site you'll find the write up on it. Yes it's pointless. More then two turbos on anything is pointless.

But if you wanna read the Hot Rod write up on it...
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/113_0411_turbo/index3.html

 

[Tornado]

Did I say I was knowledge on the subject? No not at all, but I'm saying making a 1000hp engine in a car is nothing new, there has been aftermarket companies doing it for a long time and race teams that have been taking street engines and doing just that for even a longer time.

I know it is nothing new. But simply making a car with so much power does not gurantee it will be fast, acceleration or top speed wise, and it definately doesn't mean it will handle well. Also, tell me when it's been done before with promised reliablilty. Tell me when it's been done with billions of dollars of investment to meet the cars expectation. You keep saying money runs the world. Well, VAG threw around 2 billion dollars at the Veyron to make it as good as it is. The fact that tuners don't even have that much money tells you about how reliable and thought out there cars will be.

Crap ass tuners? I think you are sorely mistaken because not only is Hennessey, Saleen, Ligenfelter, etc. reputable tuners, they also work with the companies they tune for.

Yeah, but you don't understand my point. If your god-encrusted 1000 BHP Viper (which, sorry to say, isn't anything special) breaks (which happens quite often, I've heard) or the owner crashes it because it is hard to drive (which Bugatti covers before you get the car) and not designed to go that fast (and no tuner can fix that), he's SOL, because he voided the cars original warranty and didn't get one with the tuning. Barring Saleen, RUF and John Cooper Works, no tuner will ever be as good as a manafacturer. Period.

I can't answer the questions you've asked because I don't know, but like I've said a 1000 hp engine is not a new concept at all, neither is multiple turbos. There is a Bel Air with 8 turbos on it. It's not a new concept, people have known and done it for years. They might have been done by people other then a manf. but that doesn't matter.

Yes, it does. It is alot harder for a manafacturer to do something of that caliber than it is some smuck with 50 grand in parts from Pep Boys. It is, however, a lot easier for a manafacturer to do it reliably than it is said smuck, and because of that they will always do it better.

But as we've seen before, horsepower doesn't mean much, you can take a less horsepower car and do the same thing.

That explains everything. You don't understand the point of the car. Sorry for bothering you.

 

[Joey D]

I know it is nothing new. But simply making a car with so much power does not gurantee it will be fast, acceleration or top speed wise. Also, tell me when it's been done before with promised reliablilty. Tell me when it's been done with billions of dollars of investment to meet the cars expectation. You keep saying money runs the world. Well, VAG threw around 2 billion dollars at the Veyron to make it as good as it is. The fact that tuners don't even have that much money tells you about how reliable and thought out there cars will be.

Everyone I've ever seen write anything on the Hennessey Viper has said it works as well as any other car. Chysler built the engine to take abuse (it's a modded Ram engine for god sakes). They did it at a much cheaper developement cost and it works. Lingenfelter has done close to the same thing with the Vette, but the Vette isn't as boost friendly as the Viper is.

Yeah, but you don't understand my point. If your god-encrusted 1000 BHP Viper (which, sorry to say, isn't anything special) breaks (which happens quite often) or the owner crashes it because it is hard to drive and not designed to go that fast (and no tuner can fix that), he SOL, because he voided the cars original warranty and didn't get one with the tuning. Barring Saleen, RUF and John Cooper Works, no tuner will ever be as good as a manafacturer. Period.

So a 1000hp Viper isn't special but a 1000hp Bugatti is? That doesn't make sense. And like I said, I've heard nothing but positive things. And it comes with a warrenty, most high end tuners come with a warrenty.

Is it the cars fault the owner can't handle it? No not at all, I'm sure the Veyron isn't anything short of a handful either. And don't tell me it's not, because if a 1000hp Viper is a handful in your mind, a Veyron must be too.

Yes, it does. It is alot harder for a manafacturer to do something of that caliber than it is some smuck with 50 grand in parts from Pep Boys. It is, however, a lot easier for a manafacturer to do it reliably than it is said smuck, and because of that they will always do it better.

How does it matter? I'm just saying 1000hp engines have been created before and not with Pep Boy parts, I don't think you can even buy a turbo from Pep Boys. And manf. will not always do it better, hence the aftermarket. The manf. didn't fullfill what people wanted, so they created what the people wanted.

And you are saying companies like Saleen, Henessey, Lingfelter, etc. are nothing more then smucks that don't know what they are doing? I think they've sold more cars then Bugatti has and I think more people would be able to afford it.

That explains everything. You don't understand the point of the car. Sorry for bothering you.

I know the point of the car, and I think that point is stupid.



And good Lord you sound bitter as hell over the fact I do no like the car, once again it's an opinion and I've given reasons why. I don't care if anyone likes it, I'm not out to change people's minds. I just think the car is pointless and pretty much a waste of engineering, you think differently. If everyone agreed everything would suck.

 

[JCE]

Barring Saleen, RUF and John Cooper Works, no tuner will ever be as good as a manafacturer. Period.[/SIZE][/FONT]

*car screetching* ... Stop right there, you've neglected a WHOLE HELL of alot of tuners that are under factory warranty which can be as good as the manufacturer. SVT, Nismo, Mugen, Ralliart, STi, Brabus, and a couple more I'm forgetting. Maybe this thread is now pointless because all I see is 3 or 4 people saying the same things over and over and over. Getting rather old..?

 

[Joey D]

*car screetching* ... Stop right there, you've neglected a WHOLE HELL of alot of tuners that are under factory warranty which can be as good as the manufacturer. SVT, Nismo, Mugen, Ralliart, STi, Brabus, and a couple more I'm forgetting. Maybe this thread is now pointless because all I see is 3 or 4 people saying the same things over and over and over. Getting rather old..?

More or less you are right, the only reason I keep saying the same thing is because people feel the need to call me and idiot and think I'm stupid because I don't agree with them. Some how that seems twisted.

 

[JCE]

So why don't the lot of you agree to disagree and close the thread? I dunno, just a thought.

 

[Joey D]

So why don't the lot of you agree to disagree and close the thread? I dunno, just a thought.

Because for whatever reason, no one on this forum will do that. I realized that in some of my other threads. It seems like the only one in a debate that will actually do that in the end is Live4Speed, whom I have a ton of respect for and will listen to hear his side.

 

[Tornado]

Everyone I've ever seen write anything on the Hennessey Viper has said it works as well as any other car. Chysler built the engine to take abuse (it's a modded Ram engine for god sakes). They did it at a much cheaper developement cost and it works. Lingenfelter has done close to the same thing with the Vette, but the Vette isn't as boost friendly as the Viper is. So a 1000hp Viper isn't special but a 1000hp Bugatti is? That doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. The 1000TT is merely a tune up Viper, of which there are thousands. A car that only costs 85K. Simply adding power does not make it as good as a car that already had that much. The Bugatti is a stand-alone car designed to be that fast from the getgo.

Is it the cars fault the owner can't handle it? No not at all, I'm sure the Veyron isn't anything short of a handful either. And don't tell me it's not, because if a 1000hp Viper is a handful in your mind, a Veyron must be too.

No, it isn't the cars fault that it wasn't designed to be as fast as it is. It's the tuners, who (unless they do some sort of suspension callobration), often make very workable engines and neglect to do anything to the rest of the car, resulting in an unstable mess of engine with twice as much power as the car (and owner) can handle. Manafacturers, perhaps due to threat of lawsuits more than anything else, comb over everything on the car. Is the Mazda RX-8 just a Miata with more power and a hardtop? No, it is a legitimately rethought car. Most tuner cars are also not. Saleens, RUFs and similar tuners rethink everything inside the cars they tune, and you can't just get a 560 BHP Porsche or 500 BHP Mustang. And, yes, I heartily beleive the Bugatti is a far easier car to drive, because it was designed to be so. The Viper is a raw, oversteery car stock. With 1000 BHP it is probably a nightmare. The Bugatti was said by Gordon Murray to be an amazing car, especially considering all of the standards set beforehand that had to be met.

And manf. will not always do it better, hence the aftermarket. The manf. didn't fullfill what people wanted, so they created what the people wanted.

Because manafacturers have budgets that have to be met. That is why when they try to do something they can't afford to (ie. Porsche in the late 80's) they nearly go belly up.

And you are saying companies like Saleen, Henessey, Lingfelter, etc. are nothing more then smucks that don't know what they are doing? I think they've sold more cars then Bugatti has and I think more people would be able to afford it.

1. The fact that they have sold more cars does not mean they are better.
2. When they sell cars that merely add power to a car (which is basically what Hennessy usually does), they are exactly like the smucks with more money than sense, adding big turbos to Supras and whatnot.
3. Lingenfelter and Saleen do not fall under that category (and I never said Saleen did), as neither will sell you a car with double it's stock BHP without even making it drivable and safe.

And go Lord you sound bitter as hell over the fact I do no like the car, once again it's an opinion and I've given reasons why. I don't care if anyone likes it, I'm not out to change people's minds. I just think the car is pointless and pretty much a waste of engineering, you think differently. If everyone agreed everything would suck.

I could care less whether you like the car. I don't even like the car. I'm bitter over the fact that you don't understand why VAG built it, and why it is such a landmark.

 

[Tornado]

*car screetching* ... Stop right there, you've neglected a WHOLE HELL of alot of tuners that are under factory warranty which can be as good as the manufacturer. SVT, Nismo, Mugen, Ralliart, STi, Brabus, and a couple more I'm forgetting.

That is because they would go under the "John Cooper Works" category.

 

[JCE]

That is because they would go under the "John Cooper Works" category.

Why didn't you say that in the first place.

 

[Joey D]

It makes perfect sense. The 1000TT is merely a tune up Viper, of which there are thousands. A car that only costs 85K. Simply adding power does not make it as good as a car that already had that much. The Bugatti is a stand-alone car designed to be that fast from the getgo.

Actually simply adding power makes the awesome Viper even better. There is no denying that because it does, and I'm not the only one who thinks that.

No, it isn't the cars fault that it wasn't designed to be as fast as it is. It's the tuners, who (unless they do some sort of suspension callobration), often make very workable engines and neglect to do anything to the rest of the car, resulting in an unstable mess of engine with twice as much power as the car (and owner) can handle. Manafacturers, perhaps due to threat of lawsuits more than anything else, comb over everything on the car. Is the Mazda RX-8 just a Miata with more power and a hardtop? No, it is a legitimately rethought car. Most tuner cars are also not. Saleens, RUFs and similar tuners rethink everything inside the cars they tune, and you can't just get a 560 BHP Porsche or 500 BHP Mustang. And, yes, I heartily beleive the Bugatti is a far easier car to drive, because it was designed to be so. The Viper is a raw, oversteery car stock. With 1000 BHP it is probably a nightmare. The Bugatti was said by Gordon Murray to be an amazing car, especially considering all of the standards set beforehand that had to be met.

The Viper was designed with racing in mind, and it looks like it suceeded. It did fairly well in the Le Mans series.

But you can't call Henessey another tuner, because they are not, they are a very well respected tuner. They also do suspension, drivetrain, and brake modifications to the car to make it streetable, don't believe me? Look at their website and you'll see they do just that.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is not getting sarcasm.

To be repected in a discussion one should avoid sarcasm, it makes you look like a fool.

Because manafacturers have budgets that have to be met. That is why when they try to do something they can't afford to (ie. Porsche in the late 80's) they nearly go belly up.

Wasn't the Veyron built without a budget, I'm pretty sure that was stated in this thread.

The fact that they have sold more cars does not mean they are better.

No, but it suggests they are doing something people want more.

When they sell cars that merely add power to a car (which is basically what Hennessy usually does), they are exactly like the smucks with more money than sense, adding big turbos to Supras and whatnot.

No they don't, you are so far wrong on the Hennessy thing its not even funny.
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com...his=Venom+1000+Twin+Turbo+SRT&ActionReq=Where

Comes with an upgraded drivetrain, suspension, brakes, and is topped off with a warrenty and a lesson on how to drive it. Not to mention it will do 255mph and cost a 1/5th of the Veyron.

Lingenfelter and Saleen do not fall under that category (and I never said Saleen did), as neither will sell you a car with double it's stock BHP without even making it drivable and safe.

And Henessey doesn't? Which is does.

I could care less whether you like the car. I don't even like the car. I'm bitter over the fact that you don't understand why VAG built it, and why it is such a landmark

If you don't care why are you being so bitter about it? I understand perfectly why the car was built, that's been hammered out quite a bit.

 

[Tornado]

But you can't call Henessey another tuner, because they are not, they are a very well respected tuner. They also do suspension, drivetrain, and brake modifications to the car to make it streetable, don't believe me? Look at their website and you'll see they do just that.

Okay, I was under the assumption that they still did what they did in the late 90's.

No, but it suggests they are doing something people want more.

It doesn't mean that either, because you can't measure want with sales. Everyone wanted a Countach in the 80's. Does that mean everyone had one? It means many more had replicas than the real thing, but does that mean a replica is as good as the (admitedlly flawed) actual thing? I know, in some cases, yes. But the majority of the time, no.

Wasn't the Veyron built without a budget, I'm pretty sure that was stated in this thread.

It was, at immense financial cost to VAG. However, if they can use the technology correctly, they will pay off all of the debts very quickly. It is very difficult to do so fast enough, however, which is why Porsche go into so much trouble with the 959, why Cizeta went out of buisiness and Bugatti Automobili went bankrupt in '95.

If you don't care why are you being so bitter about it? I understand perfectly why the car was built, that's been hammered out quite a bit.

Because the way you are attacking the Veyron it makes me assume you don't understand why it was built. Specifically speaking, your targeting of the 1000 BHP issue, and bringing tuner cars into play.

 

[Joey D]

It doesn't mean that either, because you can't measure want with sales. Everyone wanted a Countach in the 80's. Does that mean everyone had one? It means many more had replicas than the real thing, but does that mean a replica is as good as the (admitedlly flawed) actual thing? I know, in some cases, yes. But the majority of the time, no.

Wait what? You need to learn economics, if its wanted by consumers it will sell. Look at windows, it's overly expensive but almost everyone will want and get the new Vista when it comes out. If people want, they will buy.

If people didn't want the Toyota Camry it wouldn't be the best selling car in America, etc., etc. I could go on.

People don't want it because it's to expensive. If something is to overpriced it won't sell nearly as well.

I could dig out my economics book and explain it better, but I really don't care that much, just look at how capitalism works.

It was, at immense financial cost to VAG. However, if they can use the technology correctly, they will pay off all of the debts very quickly. It is very difficult to do so fast enough, however, which is why Porsche go into so much trouble with the 959.

From a business sense that was very risky and very stupid, with moves like that they will end up like GM...in the gutter. I think they had a gross mismanagement of their money. Losing 6 million on each car has to be the worse business story I've heard in a while. Why wouldn't they just develope one, make it a driveable concept and there you go...that's the point of a concept.

Because the way you are attacking the Veyron it makes me assume you don't understand why it was built. Specifically speaking, your targeting of the 1000 BHP issue, and bringing tuner cars into play.

It was built to show case the technology and because the head of VAG said that it had to built as close as possible to the concept while being the fastest manf. based production car in the world while being full of luxery and it had to have 1000hp...that's why it was built. And that makes little sense to me. As we've learned from things like the SSr, concept -> real cars without much change don't exactly sell well. Hell niche cars don't sell well and aren't the worlds best idea.

And I'm bring the Hennessy into play just because it's cheaper, goes faster, has a warrenty, has the same horsepower, close to the same displacement, and is built by a reputable company.

 

[Tornado]

Wait what? You need to learn economics, if its wanted by consumers it will sell. Look at windows, it's overly expensive but almost everyone will want and get the new Vista when it comes out. If people want, they will buy.
If people didn't want the Toyota Camry it wouldn't be the best selling car in America, etc., etc. I could go on.
People don't want it because it's to expensive. If something is to overpriced it won't sell nearly as well.

Ahh, but the price doesn't effect how much people want something, and if anything adds to the allure of it.. Price only effects how much will actually buy it. I want a McLaren F1 LM. Can I get one? No. Does that effect how much I want it at all? No.

From a business sense that was very risky and very stupid, with moves like that they will end up like GM...in the gutter. I think they had a gross mismanagement of their money. Losing 6 million on each car has to be the worse business story I've heard in a while. Why wouldn't they just develope one, make it a driveable concept and there you go...that's the point of a concept.

But if it pays off, they will score real big. And they already have this extensively designed car, so they might as well sell it to raise the status of the company. 6 million-per for an extremely low-volume car is a small price to pay for a major image boost.

It was built to show case the technology and because the head of VAG said that it had to built as close as possible to the concept while being the fastest manf. based production car in the world while being full of luxery and it had to have 1000hp...that's why it was built. And that makes little sense to me. As we've learned from things like the SSr, concept -> real cars without much change don't exactly sell well. Hell niche cars don't sell well and aren't the worlds best idea.
And I'm bring the Hennessy into play just because it's cheaper, goes faster, has a warrenty, has the same horsepower, close to the same displacement, and is built by a reputable company.

I don't know about that. Last I checked, the VW New Beetle and Pontiac Solstice were selling quite well. And the most pointless of all cars, ever, the Plymouth Prowler (lets look at it as Plymouths Veyron) sold pretty well. Exact renditions of show cars only sell poorly when they are, in fact, pretty poor propositions to begin with (as was the SSR, and retro T-Bird). When the car lives up to it's promises (like the Lotus Esprit or Chevrolet HHR) they sell quite well, regardless of any flaws they might have.
And on the Hennessy, yes it may be faster and cheaper, but does it have the same prestige? Is it a technological landmine? Is it going to be rembered 30 years from now? The Veyron almost certainly will be.

 

[Joey D]

Ahh, but the price doesn't effect how much people want something, and if anything adds to the allure of it.. Price only effects how much will actually buy it. I want a McLaren F1 LM. Can I get one? No. Does that effect how much I want it at all? No.

Car companies don't care if you want it, they care about whether or not you buy it. Ask anyone in business and they will tell you the same thing. I want a GMC Typhoon but does that mean anything? No not at all, GM isn't going to remake it just for me.

Car companies think they know whats cool, if its a hit they they know they did something right. Just like the Camaro and Challenger concepts, people want them and GM and Dodge are taking a risk to sell them.

But if it pays off, they will score real big. And they already have this extensively designed car, so they might as well sell it to raise the status of the company. 6 million-per for an extremely low-volume car is a small price to pay for a major image boost.

They better hope they can use something from it or they are going to have a major case of SOL.

 

[Tornado]

Car companies don't care if you want it, they care about whether or not you buy it. Ask anyone in business and they will tell you the same thing. I want a GMC Typhoon but does that mean anything? No not at all, GM isn't going to remake it just for me.

But the lower the volume the car is, the less of a problem that becomes. The Typhoon is a bad example. They made a lot more of them than Lamborghini did Countachs, or Bugatti will Veyrons. It was, comparably, a high volume car.

 

[Joey D]

But the lower the volume the car is, the less of a problem that becomes. The Typhoon is a bad example. They made a lot more of them than Lamborghini did Countachs, or Bugatti will Veyrons. It was, comparably, a high volume car.

Actually it's not, the Typhoon was very low volume and a really low volume compared to the Jimmy. But it's the same thing, if just because I want it doesn't mean they'll make it again.

I don't know about that. Last I checked, the VW New Beetle and Pontiac Solstice were selling quite well. And the most pointless of all cars, ever, the Plymouth Prowler (lets look at it as Plymouths Veyron) sold pretty well. Exact renditions of show cars only sell poorly when they are, in fact, pretty poor propositions to begin with (as was the SSR, and retro T-Bird). When the car lives up to it's promises (like the Lotus Esprit or Chevrolet HHR) they sell quite well, regardless of any flaws they might have.
And on the Hennessy, yes it may be faster and cheaper, but does it have the same prestige? Is it a technological landmine? Is it going to be rembered 30 years from now? The Veyron almost certainly will be.

The Beetle sells ok, the Soltice is selling very well, and the Plymouth Prowler sold like crap. The SSr delievered exactly what it promised, although it was a pretty stupid thing, the retro T-bird was a very bad idea, the Esprit might have sold well, the HHR isn't doing so hot.

The Hennessy will be remembered for sure.

 

[Tornado]

Actually it's not, the Typhoon was very low volume and a really low volume compared to the Jimmy. But it's the same thing, if just because I want it doesn't mean they'll make it again.

But was the profit margin as high as say, Lamborghini's? Lets say Lamborghini make 100,000 on each car sold. If they can get 10 people to buy a car that they get that much money on, then hey, easy million. GM probably barely made 1/10th of that on each Typhoon. Thus, it's not worth it for GM to make it again unless thousands of people want it. In addition, Lambo is a small company. They have less to worry about if they divert some funds into this car that they make 100,000-per on. GM, however, has many more things to worry about, and also probably have more profitable things in the pipeline that could use those funds better.

The Beetle sells ok, the Soltice is selling very well, and the Plymouth Prowler sold like crap. The SSr delievered exactly what it promised, although it was a pretty stupid thing, the retro T-bird was a very bad idea, the Esprit might have sold well, the HHR isn't doing so hot.

The Prowler sold like crap, but Chrysler made oodles of money on each one sold, and they never just sat on dealer lots. They were gone the instant they were put out on the lots, and they sold similarly as if they were even lower-volume Solstices (ie. months-long waiting lists). The SSR and retro-bird were both horrible ideas from the start, and as such sold that way. Wile the HHR isn't doing that well, it is outselling the redone PT Cruiser, and is a far better car as well.

 

[GT4_Rule]

It was, at immense financial cost to VAG. However, if they can use the technology correctly, they will pay off all of the debts very quickly. It is very difficult to do so fast enough, however, which is why Porsche go into so much trouble with the 959, why Cizeta went out of buisiness and Bugatti Automobili went bankrupt in '95.

Hold it there! If Bugatti went out of business in '95 because no one wanted it, why would the Veyron guarantee the comeback of the marque? Im sure those Veyrons were sold because they are the fastest-performing cars in the world. Its just bragging. After this, lets see if the Bugatti brand will make enough money to sustain itself.

And dont tell me the technology involved in the Veyron will filter down to other cars! Yeah it will but how long will it take to finally get down to the compact cars, which everyone can afford? Years, possibly decades. As someone else mentioned here, power windows took a long time to get down to the small cars.

As for tuners, arent you all forgetting a famous Japanese tuner, HKS??

A diamon in the dash is a waste of diamond. Gold taps in hotels are waste of gold. I seriously think that the world needs a "no-waste-of-precious-materials" agreement. Gold toilet, what a P.O.S.! A bra made out of whole assortment of precioius gems? Total waste. 16 cylinders? Waste of aluminum. The Veyron should have stayed as a concept like the Sixteen. It shouldnt have been made.

 

[the Interceptor]

Okay, as it looks the discussion is getting endless, so I'll try to come to a conclusion here. For that purpose, I'll sum up your views, BlazinXtreme, and ask you to tell me if I'm right or I'm wrong. And please don't get this wrong, I'm not trying to get you off your opinion, I'm just trying to understand why you have it.

The original question was: is the Bugatti Veyron an engineering archievement or not? You say no, because:

1. building it was a stupid idea in the first place
2. it's so expensive that virtually noone will be able to afford it
3. getting the same speed and power could have been done much cheaper and easier


And if I got you right (please correct me if I didn't), this is what an engineering archievement is:

a. eveybody can benefit from it
b. everybody can afford it
c. future products will be improved with it

Now, the thing is that I really don't understand why an engineering archievement has to match those criteria. I don't understand that an invention is pointless because it is expensive. To get back to my odd example: who can afford a nuclear bomb? But still, it is an engineering archievement.
Like I said, I respect it if it's your opinion, I just don't get it.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Wolfe]

Okay, as it looks the discussion is getting endless, so I'll try to come to a conclusion here. For that purpose, I'll sum up your views, BlazinXtreme, and ask you to tell me if I'm right or I'm wrong. And please don't get this wrong, I'm not trying to get you off your opinion, I'm just trying to understand why you have it.

The original question was: is the Bugatti Veyron an engineering archievement or not? You say no, because:

1. building it was a stupid idea in the first place
2. it's so expensive that virtually noone will be able to afford it
3. getting the same speed and power could have been done much cheaper and easier


And if I got you right (please correct me if I didn't), this is what an engineering archievement is:

a. eveybody can benefit from it
b. everybody can afford it
c. future products will be improved with it

Now, the thing is that I really don't understand why an engineering archievement has to match those criteria. I don't understand that an invention is pointless because it is expensive. To get back to my odd example: who can afford a nuclear bomb? But still, it is an engineering archievement.
Like I said, I respect it if it's your opinion, I just don't get it.

Regards
the Interceptor

+1.

The Veyron is a big, fat, expensive hunk of bragging rights for VAG, and that's all it was intended to be. Impractical or not, 1001hp from a production car is outstanding, and 253mph has become the new top speed for other manufacturers to aim for.

It's very luxurious, very famous, and it goes like stink. What more do you (Blazin, GT4_Rule, and anyone else against the Veyron) want? For it to get 100mpg and seat 10?

 

[Famine]

A diamon in the dash is a waste of diamond. Gold taps in hotels are waste of gold. I seriously think that the world needs a "no-waste-of-precious-materials" agreement. Gold toilet, what a P.O.S.! A bra made out of whole assortment of precioius gems? Total waste. 16 cylinders? Waste of aluminum.

Off-topic but out of interest...

What wouldn't class as a waste of diamonds/gold/aluminium to you? What uses of these items do you approve of?

 

[YSSMAN]

...So then comes the question of neiche (sp?) marketing: Is it good for a company to be profitable by building small ammounts of cars to fill a wide variety of interests for a wide assortment of people?

Mercedes thinks so, and guess what, GM is changing twards that policy too. Added to that, you could almost use a blanket example of VAG and consider that one neiche company, building cars for the low end (Skoda and VW), and the extreme high-end (Lamborghini, Bugatti, Bentley) to balance out the sales.

 

[Vasco]

Wait what? You need to learn economics, if its wanted by consumers it will sell. Look at windows, it's overly expensive but almost everyone will want and get the new Vista when it comes out. If people want, they will buy.

Because the Veyron is obviously a car that was made to sell to everyone right? The Veyron wasn't made for VAG to make a huge profit, it was made to push the boundaries of their engineering capabilities.

 

[Dave A]

The SLR is long, fat, and very slow when compaired to the Veyron--how is that in the same class? The SLR may be a GT car but the Veyon is like a super/hyper GT car...the same as a 911 is a really fast sports car but the Carrera GT is a super/hyper car. Make sense?

The SLR isn't in the same class, no one siad it was, but it's the closest car I can think to be compared properly to the Veyron, an Enzo, 911 or Carrera GT certainly arn't as close, neither is a McLaren F1, Koenigsegg CCR or Hennessey Viper with 1000bhp.

 

[Joey D]

1. building it was a stupid idea in the first place
2. it's so expensive that virtually noone will be able to afford it
3. getting the same speed and power could have been done much cheaper and easier

1. Yes you are correct
2. Absolutely
3. You nailed it!

a. eveybody can benefit from it
b. everybody can afford it
c. future products will be improved with it

a. Not everyone but a goodly chunk of people
b. Same as above. Look at the computer example.
c. If the Veyron pushes a boundry I expect to see cars with its technology as soon as 2007 model year.

Now, the thing is that I really don't understand why an engineering archievement has to match those criteria.

If I designed an engine that ran on water, polluted 0%, and could run without ever needing repair...and sold it for a 100 billlion dollars to everyone who wanted one, it would be so expensive no one could buy it. If no one/or hardly anyone can afford it, it's not a big use to people.

it's very luxurious, very famous, and it goes like stink. What more do you (Blazin, GT4_Rule, and anyone else against the Veyron) want? For it to get 100mpg and seat 10?

Something that revolutionizes the auto industry is what I want and something I respect. A high horsepowered, gasoline buring car with luxery isn't revolutionary at all. Now a car that is high horsepower, running on hydrogen (or other fuel) and is luxery I can tottally respect. Companies should be thinking about switching over fuels, making better use of said fuesl, better safety, more idiot proofing cars, etc. The world doesn't need a 1000hp car that cost a million bucks, and really does zero good to anyone.

Now create me a 5 passenger sedan that runs on something else, gets mileage on that something else, is cheap to buy, and is somewhat stylish...and I will call that an engineering marvel.

 

[Dave A]

If the Veyron pushes a boundry I expect to see cars with its technology as soon as 2007 model year.

And seeing such new and high class techniwques and components has never once filtered through that fast history of the automobile, barring the first autombile (since every car after had the engine and wheels), or are you saying that no car since then has ever pushed the boundary or been a technical achievment.

If I designed an engine that ran on water, polluted 0%, and could run without ever needing repair...and sold it for a 100 billlion dollars to everyone who wanted one, it would be so expensive no one could buy it. If no one/or hardly anyone can afford it, it's not a big use to people.

no one affording it wouldn't prevent it from being a technical achievment, I don't see your connection here, we could all get by without knowing anything about space or landing a man on the moon, but that was still an achievemnt as is all the probe's we build that colelct information.

Something that revolutionizes the auto industry is what I want and something I respect.

Which is something that neither the Z)6 or the S2000 do, but for some reason you think the S2000 is a technical achievement.

A high horsepowered, gasoline buring car with luxery isn't revolutionary at all.

No, but having a 1000bhp, 252mph car that is relaible, comfey and and easy to drive is.

Now a car that is high horsepower, running on hydrogen (or other fuel) and is luxery I can tottally respect. Companies should be thinking about switching over fuels, making better use of said fuesl, better safety, more idiot proofing cars, etc. The world doesn't need a 1000hp car that cost a million bucks, and really does zero good to anyone.

The world doesn't need the S2000 or Vette either, it doesn't need TVR's, sure car's in general as a concept can benefit the world, but these sportscars can't.

 

[Joey D]

And seeing such new and high class techniwques and components has never once filtered through that fast history of the automobile, barring the first autombile (since every car after had the engine and wheels), or are you saying that no car since then has ever pushed the boundary or been a technical achievment.

Then I should see them by the end of the decade...thats more then enough time. Plus wasn't the Veyron in development for a really long time? They should have had this technology for a while now.

no one affording it wouldn't prevent it from being a technical achievment, I don't see your connection here, we could all get by without knowing anything about space or landing a man on the moon, but that was still an achievemnt as is all the probe's we build that colelct information.

But its not good to anyone if it's not affordable and accessable...like I said people thought the computer was a joke until the early 90's when people could actually afford to buy them and put them in their homes.

Which is something that neither the Z)6 or the S2000 do, but for some reason you think the S2000 is a technical achievement.

The Z06 is questionable, the only reason I think it's so good is because of the price and performance you get. But there isn't anything ground breaking on the car. The S2000 is impressive because of all that power from a small n/a engine and is probably more reliable then any sports car out there because we all know Honda's run forever.

No, but having a 1000bhp, 252mph car that is relaible, comfey and and easy to drive is.

None of us know if its reliable or easy to drive, I'm willing to beat I'd have a hard time driving it and I'm just an average guy.

The world doesn't need the S2000 or Vette either, it doesn't need TVR's, sure car's in general as a concept can benefit the world, but these sportscars can't.

That's true, we don't need them, never said we did.To say the world needs sports cars is rediculious.