RE: Speed Matters? PH Blog
Discussion
I am genuinely surpised by these comments.
If offered the keys to the bugatti or the caparro you'd choose an m3 or a caterham?
I love the fact these cars exist, and don't understand the negativity one bit.
Currently riding a stupidly fast bike and fail to believe I'll ever find acceleration or g forces as boring.
If offered the keys to the bugatti or the caparro you'd choose an m3 or a caterham?
I love the fact these cars exist, and don't understand the negativity one bit.
Currently riding a stupidly fast bike and fail to believe I'll ever find acceleration or g forces as boring.
This idea that there are no roads that support 200mph+ driving is wrong.
You can do so legally in Germany.
You can do so illegally in many countries.
The more accelerative the car, the easier it is to achieve high speeds. Some drivers use the 200mph+ capability regularly. You just need to have the money to buy and run the car, the skill & confidence to drive at the speed, and the empty (or near empty) autobahn on your daily commute. The Veyron is a good example of a car that was designed to be comfortable/behave normally at high speeds.
You can do so legally in Germany.
You can do so illegally in many countries.
The more accelerative the car, the easier it is to achieve high speeds. Some drivers use the 200mph+ capability regularly. You just need to have the money to buy and run the car, the skill & confidence to drive at the speed, and the empty (or near empty) autobahn on your daily commute. The Veyron is a good example of a car that was designed to be comfortable/behave normally at high speeds.
kudosdude said:
I am genuinely surpised by these comments.
If offered the keys to the bugatti or the caparro you'd choose an m3 or a caterham?
I love the fact these cars exist, and don't understand the negativity one bit.
Currently riding a stupidly fast bike and fail to believe I'll ever find acceleration or g forces as boring.
I'd rather have a go in a Caterham, ok so it would need to be an R500 or one of the other mental ones, over a Veyron or a Caparo. The Caparo might just be raw enough to get my attention, but a Veyron, certainly not. If offered the keys to the bugatti or the caparro you'd choose an m3 or a caterham?
I love the fact these cars exist, and don't understand the negativity one bit.
Currently riding a stupidly fast bike and fail to believe I'll ever find acceleration or g forces as boring.
That said, I'd rather be on a bike than 4 wheels, so any car that can get me closer to the sensations of a bike would be preferable to a 300mph luxury car. However, even the rawest of cars are only ever going to offer diluted, tepid thrills compared to what a bike would offer, hence I struggle to envision myself ever spending money on something like a Caterham.
The selling point of the Veyron, apart from the engineering and technology, is the brutal amount of BHP and top speed. A decrease in either of those two would be a step backwards for customers, you know the people with the money to buy these sort of cars, not the ones who on PH think that they know better than some of the leading manufacturers in the world 
Just my 2 pence worth. It annoys me that there are always far more negative comments than positive on any given subject, maybe it's just easier to put down then praise. If you have no interest in a particular car or find it pointless why spend the time reading the article then posting a comment merely stating that you have no interest or find it pointless? I find Eastenders pointless so I don't watch it and spend as little of my life thinking about it as I possibly can. Simple
The answer as to whether or not a higher performance version of the Veyron is needed has already been answered by the very people who are likely to buy it, the owners of the original. They didn't want a four seat high performance car to compliment the Veyron but a newer, more focused and higher performance version of the Veyron so that is exactly what Bugatti are developing having dropped their original plans.
The answer as to whether or not a higher performance version of the Veyron is needed has already been answered by the very people who are likely to buy it, the owners of the original. They didn't want a four seat high performance car to compliment the Veyron but a newer, more focused and higher performance version of the Veyron so that is exactly what Bugatti are developing having dropped their original plans.
I've never driven either car, neither have I ever seen one. So the news that new versions will be launched soon is akin to the discovery of a new planet in a far off galaxy in terms of relevance to me.
Personally I think cars that feel faster than they are and give more feedback are the most fun and a crap car on a good road beats a good car on a crap road for driving thrills anyway
Personally I think cars that feel faster than they are and give more feedback are the most fun and a crap car on a good road beats a good car on a crap road for driving thrills anyway
kudosdude said:
I am genuinely surpised by these comments.
If offered the keys to the bugatti or the caparro you'd choose an m3 or a caterham?
I think the more accurate analogy is bringing someone to a table on which lie four keys and and saying that they must commit to the one they choose.If offered the keys to the bugatti or the caparro you'd choose an m3 or a caterham?
I think as well that most Veyron buyers are not looking for their do-all car, they're looking to make sure they've got the top end covered in their collection.
The Caparo is different. It exists as an exercise at the other end of the spectrum, using aero and mechanical grip, and half the power and half the weight to achieve the same performance. It was a product of the reaction to the veyron, (and the start of the proliferation of ever faster Radicals, Atoms and Ultimas) which itself was an exercise in additive process, of saying 'More'. The Caparo rather than was closer to what i think of as good engineering; that is: any idiot can make something more complex it takes real skill to make something simple. The problem, engineering-wise with the Veyron is that there's nothing that moves the game forward aside from the fact that they fit more radiators and cylinders in it. The Veyron treads no new ground in its approach. The Caparo was a completely different proposition, more an extension of the Mac F1, only with less passengers, less bodywork, and an architecture even more closely related to racing cars. The analogous situation at VAG would have been pumping the Carrera GT full of steroids and making that feel like an extra posh Bentley. I guess they did a good job if you like that sort of thing.
At the end of the day I think the BAC Mono is a better T1, and it looks better, so it would be nice if they got the whole thing dialed this time.
A more powerful Bugatti? I haven't even asked myself; i guess in that sense too, they have done their job. It could be much better looking though, maybe less like a boulder and more like a sculpture. That would make it feel like more of a luxurious accoutrement to be around. Totally left me cold when i saw one in person, it just wasn't interesting, it was more interesting for the fact that it was a Bugatti Veyron than for its own lines and forms.
The Caparo T1 was purely a vanity project by Angad Paul spending his Dad's money. Given that Caparo Group turnover is down 60% since 2008 and it's lost over £30 million in the last 2 years, I'm surprised Daddy Lord Paul as the Chairman of the group is letting this happen at all.
It really should go the same way as their Film24 project, left to go into insolvency.
Anyway, I really don't get the T1 at all and the T1 Evolution is just about ego as far as I can see.
It really should go the same way as their Film24 project, left to go into insolvency.
Anyway, I really don't get the T1 at all and the T1 Evolution is just about ego as far as I can see.
foliedouce said:
The Caparo T1 was purely a vanity project by Angad Paul spending his Dad's money. Given that Caparo Group turnover is down 60% since 2008 and it's lost over £30 million in the last 2 years, I'm surprised Daddy Lord Paul as the Chairman of the group is letting this happen at all.
It really should go the same way as their Film24 project, left to go into insolvency.
Anyway, I really don't get the T1 at all and the T1 Evolution is just about ego as far as I can see.
A lot of ego in making supercars, Mr Lamborghini got in a strop and built his cars to try to top Ferrari, as did Pagani in a slightly less stroppy way, way back the Gt40 was made as a fIt really should go the same way as their Film24 project, left to go into insolvency.
Anyway, I really don't get the T1 at all and the T1 Evolution is just about ego as far as I can see.
k you to Ferrari. Haha, if Ferrari weren't so egocentric we would have a lot less supercars!I don't agree with the article.
Motor manufacturers cater for a broad range if tastes, needs and pockets. These motors as simply for people with more money they most mere mortals. I see a lot of class envy buried just below the surface of many comments. While others are simply ill informed.
The Veyron is an engineering masterpiece, period. To tame over 1,000-hp and make it genuinely streetable and reliable is amazing in itself. And anyone who thinks its performance is irrelevant hasn't driven a truly quick car (as in low tens on the quarter). That's the sort of speed that really fast bikes run. Don't see anyone slating them. I ran a 1200-hp Monaro on the street for a while. Performance was epic. Much more fun than some other performance cars I've owned.
Having driven an ex-F1, I imagine that the Caparo is immense fun. That it's not as reliable as a VW Golf TDi is petty to say the least. Maybe you could moan about the fuel economy or the lack of storage. And the idea that it's too fast for the track is utter nonsense. I ran the F1 at Mallory Park at the same time as a few Formula Fords and the odd Ferrari. No problem.
And finally, 290-mph in a street legal car...bloody amazing. That's within spitting distance of quite a few land speed record holders of days gone by.
Motor manufacturers cater for a broad range if tastes, needs and pockets. These motors as simply for people with more money they most mere mortals. I see a lot of class envy buried just below the surface of many comments. While others are simply ill informed.
The Veyron is an engineering masterpiece, period. To tame over 1,000-hp and make it genuinely streetable and reliable is amazing in itself. And anyone who thinks its performance is irrelevant hasn't driven a truly quick car (as in low tens on the quarter). That's the sort of speed that really fast bikes run. Don't see anyone slating them. I ran a 1200-hp Monaro on the street for a while. Performance was epic. Much more fun than some other performance cars I've owned.
Having driven an ex-F1, I imagine that the Caparo is immense fun. That it's not as reliable as a VW Golf TDi is petty to say the least. Maybe you could moan about the fuel economy or the lack of storage. And the idea that it's too fast for the track is utter nonsense. I ran the F1 at Mallory Park at the same time as a few Formula Fords and the odd Ferrari. No problem.
And finally, 290-mph in a street legal car...bloody amazing. That's within spitting distance of quite a few land speed record holders of days gone by.
stephen300o said:
A lot of ego in making supercars, Mr Lamborghini got in a strop and built his cars to try to top Ferrari, as did Pagani in a slightly less stroppy way, way back the Gt40 was made as a fk you to Ferrari. Haha, if Ferrari weren't so egocentric we would have a lot less supercars!
True and in a lot ways we should be grateful for thatk you to Ferrari. Haha, if Ferrari weren't so egocentric we would have a lot less supercars!gigglebug said:
It annoys me that there are always far more negative comments than positive on any given subject, maybe it's just easier to put down then praise. If you have no interest in a particular car or find it pointless why spend the time reading the article then posting a comment merely stating that you have no interest or find it pointless?
Are you annoyed at the posters on this forum or with Chris Harris for the original article? I'm not surprised by the arguments against impossibly fast cars (I largely fall into that camp), but I was very surprised at the tone of the article.
Itsallicanafford said:
Speed is just a number, its the experience of the speed that counts.
My top speeds are:
Air: 580Mphish in a 777
Land - car: 160mph BMW M3 CSL
Land - Train: 180mph Japanes Shinkansen
Sea: 65mph 19ft Phamton, XR2 Merc (sitting on the fuel tank, with the motor 6 inches away from my head, making huge air off waves)
Quess which one felt the fastest, by a factor of about 10
Good point, well made. My top speeds are:
Air: 580Mphish in a 777
Land - car: 160mph BMW M3 CSL
Land - Train: 180mph Japanes Shinkansen
Sea: 65mph 19ft Phamton, XR2 Merc (sitting on the fuel tank, with the motor 6 inches away from my head, making huge air off waves)
Quess which one felt the fastest, by a factor of about 10
When a man in a Veyron beats my Brighton (St.Peters) to London (London Bridge) time of 46 minutes i will concede he has a quick car. You just can't drive fast in England any more, time for slow luxury, the Veyron looks like a giant squashed frog, horrible.
Bugatti were mad not to produce that replacement saloon. A high tech Napoleon replacement please.
Bugatti were mad not to produce that replacement saloon. A high tech Napoleon replacement please.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff