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

[Famine]

My uncles a doctor (as well as two of my aunt's) and they use diamond plated surgery knifes.

"Diamond plated"?

I'd love to hear how that process works...

The car isnt a sculpture, its a vehicle. Gold trading between individuals wont help the economy; how about large companies that trade gold (if there is such thing)

Aluminum taps, 747s, and ladders help the whole world not just 1/3 because, there is such thing called foreign aid n stuff, which collects donations and fundraisers and performs projects for poor countries, which includes laying water pipes, carrying aid by helis and military planes, and helping construction by using a ladder.

Btw I dont remember mentioning a wedding ring. Its a bonding between the two, and its something of an emotional value.

747s, ladders, taps, diamond-plated tools, gold statues are all better than the Veyron because, in my opinion, they serve the society better than a million-dollar hypercar sitting in the garage. At least with a gold statue or sculpture, the general public can enjoy it, give that they go to the museum. Veyron, uh, no. Its someone's property and obviously someone from the streets cant go into the garage, sit in it, and enjoy the finely-crafted interior.

Here's a third of the world's population:

Please tell them why:

is a better use of:

than:

I trust you see the point. You consider the use of gold in sculptures useful because you like it, but you consider the use of gold in bathtaps in expensive hotels useless because you don't like it. 2 billion other people don't give a rat's ass, because they've never seen gold and can't eat it.

A second point is that if gold were not in demand for such ostentatious uses, trading in gold - a use you cite as useful - wouldn't help anybody's economy.

 

[Poverty]

BMW's brand image is very bad in the UK, but usually if theyre in the market for a car in which BMW compete it 80% of the time wins over the customer. A car you want to hate but end up loving. Im clever, I make it easy and just love them from the start

 

[Joey D]

Actually, putting development money into any currect alternative fuel other than biodiesel or similar fuels (not including natural gas) is more of a waste of money than the Veyron ever will be, so bringing up the alternative fuel card does nothing.

You're kidding right? You have to be, you honestly think a car that runs on something other then gasoline, which won't be around sooner rather then later, is a waste of money and something that really isn't needed in the world is? I don't understand that.

And my stance on this is, so what. The Veyron's a luxury, not something to change the economy. Gold taps are a luxury, a big house is a luxury, silk bed sheet's are a luxury. You don't need them and they don't help the world, but it's nice to have them.

If its a luxery then it's not needed, that's what makes it a luxery. I'm hearing this car will change all of this stuff, but if it's a luxery then why is it needed?

Yes, I agree, but not 100% of the time, shouldn't GM have not bothered with the C6 then and just put all that extra money into an alternaive fuel project, you can apply that to every new car actually since we don't need new car's, theres enough car's on the planet to last for a long time, we could just spend every penny on alternative fuel research, it's do the most good in the long run.

Except if GM didn't build a new Corvette they would lose out on a ton of money, they did it out of need to survive in the business world, not so much because its special. And GM's put a ton of money into alternative fuels, they are one of the only companies really pushing it.

True, but not the original question. Sure you can hate the Veyron, but that does not necessarily mean you can't give credit to its developers, which was the original question: do you, or don't you?

You don't have to give them credit, if you think its a waste then you think its a waste.

Evidence?

This proves you don't read a word I say, I clearly pointed out the alternative fuels and what not. GM has some of the most fuel efficent full sized SUV's, they have E85 (not the answer but a step in the right direction), also production natural gas vehicles I can go to any dealer and order. That's the kind of stuff companies need to be thinking of.

I also know that the japanese along with the big 3 german companies are spending billions on fuel cell technology.

Except they don't plaster the magazines and tv with ads showing off what they have, so there for no one will buy it.

Both you and YSSMAN are being a bit too defensive of american cars, here. Every section of the automotive world has its critics, whether they're justified or not. I know you're both intelligent guys -- instead of whining, either disprove the negative claims or ignore them altogether. It'll do you much more good.

I'm not overly defensive, I've stated several times my next car won't come from America because I don't think they are as good as Japanese cars. But I get rather sick of people thinking I'm stupid because I disagree with their opinions, I've given what I believe on the car and I get hell because its not the same as there opinion. That's just being ignorant if people do that. I'm more then happy to hear everyone out and while I might not agree I will respect what you say.

 

[Tornado]

You're kidding right? You have to be, you honestly think a car that runs on something other then gasoline, which won't be around sooner rather then later, is a waste of money and something that really isn't needed in the world is? I don't understand that.

High school chemistry tells you why hydrogen is a waste of resources: Transitive Loss of Energy dictates that converting one energy source to another results in energy lost. Somewhere around 90% of man-made hydrogen is produced with fossil fuels. Hydrogen is a more efficient fuel, but not enough of one to balance out the energy lost making it in the first place, aside from the obvious fossil fuel issues. In addition, it would be impossible to convert the hundreds of millions of non-hydrogen cars. Cars that run on natural gas is basically switching it from one non-renewable energy source to another. Ethanol is a possible alternative, once the machines that make it switch to biodiesel or ethanol itself. And biodiesel requires no modifications to run on in diesel engines. But saying getting cars to run on ethanol is an engineering achievement is silly, because that basically results to lowering the compression ratio and modifying the fuel injectors. So, in a word, no, getting cars to run on current alternative fuels is not an engineering achievement, either because it is a waste of resources or because it doesn't require any special engineering.
​

 

[Joey D]

Companies haven't been taking alternative fuels seriously enough, VAG proved it by building a useless car. They could have taken all that money they spent on the Veyron and built a car that runs on some other fuel and it be effiecent. Now that would have been an engineering marvel and I would fully respect that.

GM makes the only mass produced alternative fuel vehicles I know of in America right now. I see Toyota just jumped on board though.

 

[YSSMAN]

Quote:
Me? I don't care. It was cool seeing the concept make it to production, but if I had millions of dollars to go spend on a new car, that would probably be the last $1M+ car I would check out.

If you don't mind me asking, why?

Why? I'm not completely sure. To me, spending the $1M+ on the Ferrari FXX seems like a better deal. You get to join Team Ferrari, and you are driving one of the rarest cars EVER. The car is so bad ass it can't be driven on the road. Other than that, $1M wouldnt be spent on one car, but probably somewhere near 20 or more. But that of course, is just me.

...BTW: I am a VAG guy, diehard VW guy to be honest... But when the attacks on the American auto industry start flying, I have to defend my home turf. I grew up around old Chevys and Mopars, and although VW holds a special place in my heart, it will never come close to GM. Maybe its because I'm from Michigan, or maybe it is because I'm an American, I dunno... I just know that I want to atleast put some sort of positive light on the American models since no one else seems to.

 

[GT4_Rule]

"Diamond plated"?

I'd love to hear how that process works...

Well, basically what I mean is the blade is diamond or is partially diamond to create precision cuts and maintain its sharpness, in case of high-speed cutting tools.

The Budda serves as a worshipping thingy for millions of Buddhists, as opposed to gold taps which only serves as a tap for few people who stays in that kind of a hotel.

But really, this debate of "How materials should be used" isnt really going to make sense because it all depends on one's values and views If someone dont consider gold taps to be useful then of course he/she'll stay that way.

 

[Greycap]

Speaking of luxury things, "luxury" can mean different things to different people. But basically it comes down to simple things: if you really need it or not. You have a computer. Do you really need it to live? No, so it's luxury. You have an electric toothbrush. Could you do with a normal one? Sure, so the electric one is luxury, and so on.

And some things about the Americans and fuel usage... if the fuel was as expensive in America as it is here (six dollars a gallon) I bet the Americans wouldn't be driving SUVs, pick-ups or anything sized like that. They would drive small cars with much lower consumption figures.

Biodiesel is increasing in importance here, and so are ethanol and natural gas. Almost all city buses in bigger cities here are already running or will soon be converted to gas. Volvo, for example, produces normal cars that can run on gas or fuel without the driver even noticing any differences. Our country is small, but around forty natural gas stations will be built here in the near future. Even the town I live in, 32.000 people, will get one. Something has to be done, and we're trying to do our part.

I appreciate GM building alternative fuel cars, but it's a drop in the sea when so many of the American cars are equipped with big V8 engines burning the good old gasoline. It's a change in the right direction, but more should be done.

And yes, I'm probably going to take a flaming, but at least I got the things said.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Speaking of luxury things, "luxury" can mean different things to different people. But basically it comes down to simple things: if you really need it or not. You have a computer. Do you really need it to live? No, so it's luxury. You have an electric toothbrush. Could you do with a normal one? Sure, so the electric one is luxury, and so on.

And some things about the Americans and fuel usage... if the fuel was as expensive in America as it is here (six dollars a gallon) I bet the Americans wouldn't be driving SUVs, pick-ups or anything sized like that. They would drive small cars with much lower consumption figures.

Biodiesel is increasing in importance here, and so are ethanol and natural gas. Almost all city buses in bigger cities here are already running or will soon be converted to gas. Volvo, for example, produces normal cars that can run on gas or fuel without the driver even noticing any differences. Our country is small, but around forty natural gas stations will be built here in the near future. Even the town I live in, 32.000 people, will get one. Something has to be done, and we're trying to do our part.

I appreciate GM building alternative fuel cars, but it's a drop in the sea when so many of the American cars are equipped with big V8 engines burning the good old gasoline. It's a change in the right direction, but more should be done.

And yes, I'm probably going to take a flaming, but at least I got the things said.

No, you're absolutely right there. North American countries arent trying hard enough as the European of Asian counterparts, although all of the buses in Vancouver region runs on either diesel (still the dirty diesel though...) or electricity. But theres much more things that can be done.

Oh btw - I do need computers to live My damned electronic portfolio!

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

'

No question this is a tool of the gods. It does not compare w/ a F1 vehicle & has no pretensions in that direction. It is not even a dinosaur. What it is & what it does is represent metals fibres in the service of man & the wind they can create. .

 

[Dave A]

You're kidding right? You have to be, you honestly think a car that runs on something other then gasoline, which won't be around sooner rather then later, is a waste of money and something that really isn't needed in the world is? I don't understand that.

Depends entirely on what the new car is running on.

If its a luxery then it's not needed, that's what makes it a luxery. I'm hearing this car will change all of this stuff, but if it's a luxery then why is it needed?

No one said the Veyron is needed, we said it could be beneficial, the TV wasn't needed but TV technology has become very beneficil.

Except if GM didn't build a new Corvette they would lose out on a ton of money, they did it out of need to survive in the business world, not so much because its special. And GM's put a ton of money into alternative fuels, they are one of the only companies really pushing it

There's a lot more profitable car market's than the one the Vette fit's in thety could have explored thoes instead. They built the new Vette because the Vette is an icon for the company, it's their flagship, it's not thier most profitable model and it's far from the most beneficial model to the consumer. You like it because it's a home built sportscar that's good, it something American that you can stand next to and say, this can hold it's own against what you produce. Everyone feels that way to a certain degree, I do about TVR, but they certainly don't benefit the economy.

You don't have to give them credit, if you think its a waste then you think its a waste.

I guess I worded my comment wring, it's not so much credit, it's that if you don't like a concept or a design, you can still recognise that it's an achievement, I'm not totally keen on the McLaren F1 (I know, shock people) but I think it was a hell of an achievement.

Except they don't plaster the magazines and tv with ads showing off what they have, so there for no one will buy it.

Does that have anything to do with the research they're doing. And they advertiose enough in the East.

Why? I'm not completely sure. To me, spending the $1M+ on the Ferrari FXX seems like a better deal. You get to join Team Ferrari, and you are driving one of the rarest cars EVER. The car is so bad ass it can't be driven on the road. Other than that, $1M wouldnt be spent on one car, but probably somewhere near 20 or more. But that of course, is just me.

Interesting outlook, I have to say I'm the other way round, sure with the FXX your joining the Ferrari racing program but to spend that much on a car you can't drive on the street and you can't race in doesn't do it for me. I respect the car, but even with a million to spend no 1 car, I wouldn't go for that one. I'd probably do the same as you, but 10-20 different cars, if I was going to spend that much cash on a car or cars. I doubt I'd spend that on car's even with the money though.

 

[Famine]

The Budda serves as a worshipping thingy for millions of Buddhists, as opposed to gold taps which only serves as a tap for few people who stays in that kind of a hotel.

As I said, tell it to these people:

who represent a third of the world. Tell them why a gold Buddha is a better use of gold than a gold tap is.

 

[Joey D]

There's a lot more profitable car market's than the one the Vette fit's in thety could have explored thoes instead. They built the new Vette because the Vette is an icon for the company, it's their flagship, it's not thier most profitable model and it's far from the most beneficial model to the consumer. You like it because it's a home built sportscar that's good, it something American that you can stand next to and say, this can hold it's own against what you produce. Everyone feels that way to a certain degree, I do about TVR, but they certainly don't benefit the economy.

True, but for a sports car it sells quite well. Most companies should have a flagship car, but that's merely for business sense.

I guess I worded my comment wring, it's not so much credit, it's that if you don't like a concept or a design, you can still recognise that it's an achievement, I'm not totally keen on the McLaren F1 (I know, shock people) but I think it was a hell of an achievement.

But I don't think it is an achievement at all, how can I recognize it if I don't believe it?

Does that have anything to do with the research they're doing. And they advertiose enough in the East.

Well they must have researched it enough to be the "first" to mass produce the things.

 

[Poverty]

GM makes the only mass produced alternative fuel vehicles I know of in America right now. I see Toyota just jumped on board though.

Please explain in more detail what you mean by alternative fuel. Please dont say E85. As for LPG cars weve had those in the UK for nearly 10 years now by several manufacturers.

This proves you don't read a word I say, I clearly pointed out the alternative fuels and what not. GM has some of the most fuel efficent full sized SUV's, they have E85 (not the answer but a step in the right direction), also production natural gas vehicles I can go to any dealer and order. That's the kind of stuff companies need to be thinking of.

Alternative fuels arent really boundry pushing at all if your talking about the likes of LPG biodiesel etc. Fuel cells however are.

E85 isnt anything special, most cars can take E85 and even more if you play wih the ECU.

We have had loads of natural gas vehicles for about 10 years now GM isnt pushing any boundries, except how much a company can be in debt till they file for bankruptcy.

Except they don't plaster the magazines and tv with ads showing off what they have, so there for no one will buy it

What exactly is your logic behind this statement because I dont see it. The reason why fuel cells etc arent being advertised is because theyre not a viable replacement for the combustion engine so far. You cant spell petrol head with cell. Oh yeah and us londoners might be getting fuel cell buses in the next couple years courtesy to Mercedes.

 

[Joey D]

Please explain in more detail what you mean by alternative fuel. Please dont say E85. As for LPG cars weve had those in the UK for nearly 10 years now by several manufacturers.

E85 does not equal gasoline, there for it's alternative. And frankly it's a pretty good one until we can come up with something better. It's a band-aid to the problem.

Alternative fuels arent really boundry pushing at all if your talking about the likes of LPG biodiesel etc. Fuel cells however are.

E85 isnt anything special, most cars can take E85 and even more if you play wih the ECU.

We have had loads of natural gas vehicles for about 10 years now GM isnt pushing any boundries, except how much a company can be in debt till they file for bankruptcy.

I make a car run on E85 you need different compression, different gaskets, and different fuel lines. You can't just mess with the computer and magically run ethonol.

But I'm talking solely US here, I haven't seen any other companies try to sell altenative fueled cars.

What exactly is your logic behind this statement because I dont see it. The reason why fuel cells etc arent being advertised is because theyre not a viable replacement for the combustion engine so far. You cant spell petrol head with cell. Oh yeah and us londoners might be getting fuel cell buses in the next couple years courtesy to Mercedes.

Uh people won't know they exsist if they aren't told about it. For all I know Kia could have a fuel celled car, but if I never hear about it, I can't consider buying it.

 

[Poverty]

I make a car run on E85 you need different compression, different gaskets, and different fuel lines. You can't just mess with the computer and magically run ethonol.

The Brazilian car market is far ahead of GM with the E85. GM did not come up with it, and in sweden it is widely used. So we have know found out E85 doesnt push any boundries at all and that GM is just purely copying something thats been used by other manufacturers in different markets for ages.

Brazil
Note: the flexible fuel engines in Brazil are built to run on gasoline (which is always mixed with 20% to 25% of ethanol in Brazil), hydrated ethyl alcohol (96% ethanol, 4% water), or any mix of those fuels. That would make them "E96-like" cars. See Flexible-fuel vehicles for more information.

Peugeot 206
Volkswagen Gol City, Fox, Kombi
Fiat Palio, Mille, Siena
Opel Astra, Zafira, Corsa, Meriva, Montana
Ford Fiesta
Renault Clio, Scénic
Citroën C3

 

[Joey D]

Consideing the Fiat had GM influcence and Opel is GM, that just hacked a few off your list.

But really there are no other car in America that push E85, and Toyota just jumped on board this week, but it will take a while. Maybe with them E85 will become more prodominate and I can actually get a car that runs on corn.

 

[Poverty]

We have car in europe that run purely on corn. But either way GM hasnt pioneered E85.

 

[Joey D]

I never said they did, they just brought it to the masses

 

[Poverty]

I never said they did, they just brought it to the masses

Of america nevermind that ford do it aswell as do chrysler. But earlier when I asked for evidence of GM pushing boundries you stated E85.

 

[Joey D]

I stated they pushed the boundries. because they made it avaliable to the masses. And I can't think of a Ford or Chysler vehicle that I can buy with E85 capabilities.

 

[Poverty]

I stated they pushed the boundries. because they made it avaliable to the masses. And I can't think of a Ford or Chysler vehicle that I can buy with E85 capabilities.

But plenty of other companies made it available to the masses years before GM. Im sorry blazing but making something as simple as E85 available to the masses is not boundry pushing

Cars In america that are E85 capable:

USA

* Chrysler Sebring, Chrysler Town & Country
* Dodge Caravan, Durango, Grand Caravan, Ram Pickup, Stratus
* Ford Crown Victoria, F-150, Taurus, Sport Trac XLT, Ford Ranger, Ford Explorer, Mercury Grand Marquis, Lincoln Town Car
* Chevrolet Avalanche, Impala, Monte Carlo, Silverado, Suburban, Tahoe
* GMC Sierra, Yukon
* Nissan Titan

 

[Joey D]

And guess what, the only cars people know about are the GM's. Like I said, if no one knows about it, then it's pointless.

 

[Poverty]

Blazing all im arguing is that E85 isnt boundry pushing at all.

 

[Joey D]

But it is when you consider how there really isn't a big movement to switch fuel types.

 

[Poverty]

Sou you think something as simple as a car running on E85 is pushing engineering boundries yet you think the veyron is a stupid car that isnt an engineering master piece. You are bonkers I could go take an M3 tomorrow and get it converted to run on pure ethanol. And you say it pushes boundries because there isnt a movement to switch to other fuel types so your basically admitting that GM is a company that tends to follow others. Also how can that be when in brazila they have been running E96 since the 70's?

Your argument is flawed and your revealing your uber bias towards anything GM. E85 doesnt push any boundries, its technology thats been lieing about for decades that isnt hard to implement at all.

 

[Dave A]

That's because E85 isn't a true viable alternative, at best it's a stop gap. Your replacing one limited resource with another. What you need as an true alternative fuel is a resource created naturally but much faster than oil.

The fact that E85 has been available in car's to anyone that want's one for age's means it's not a new idea, when it can out it was an achievemnt to provide an alternative fuel, even if it is a stop gap, but over a decade later, replicating that idea isn't an achievement, it's been done. And forget about GM supplying it to the masses, if somone is really interested in buying an E85 car, they'll look up what car's run on it they can buy. It's not mainstream yet, certainly not enough for big advertising campaigns to pay off at the moment. It did it's rounds in the news back in the 90's. Yes it was an achievement, a company doing it now isn't. It's like the colour TV, a company creats the colour TV, the first one was an achievement, mine wasn't.

 

[Joey D]

Sou you think something as simple as a car running on E85 is pushing engineering boundries yet you think the veyron is a stupid car that isnt an engineering master piece.

While I'm not biased with GM because I said Toyota has stepped on board and that's qutie an achievement as well. But making a car that runs on something other then gas is more of an achievement then a car that goes fast.

Your replacing one limited resource with another.

Corn is renewable.

 

[Poverty]

Just because something is out of the norm doesnt necessarily make something an achievement. At the end of the day the corn fuel is still something thats burns up rapidly like petrol.

 

[Dave A]

but imagine it being used as much as petrolium is, it's not an infinite supply, it doesn't take that long for use to strip the earth of a reasource. What you need is something like water, everyday water, something that will go into the car, and come out as vapour and then turn back into water. That's a reasource that wouldn't run out, solar energy, electricity, they're all more long term replacements, however theres a lot more work needed to make them viable. If you want a car comapny to be truely looking into helping save pollution and find an alternative fuel source, that's the kind of energy you should be looking for.