RE: New Audi R8 - first look

[Alucidnation]

Modificata said:

I will always view Audi as an upmarket VW.

A bit like Porsche?

[carinaman]

When I see an R8, I think Gallardo. I'd not be bothered if was branded Skoda or Seat I'd still want one.

[Alucidnation]

I drove a V10 spyder a few years ago and was surprised at how easy it was to drive.

If i was ever in the market, i would certainly give this some serious thought.

Great looking car IMO.

[CoolHands]

MonkeyMatt said:

bobberz said:

Looking forward to seeing being blinded by the new R8, soon. The brightness of modern headlights is a serious issue, even the so-called low beams. By comparison, the headlights on my S3 Alfa Spider seem woefully inadequate, yet are actually okay when I'm not being blinded by oncoming traffic!

'The spread of LEDs means the beam can be spread, angled and blanked according to need and without the weight and complexity of mechanically adjusted reflectors. You simply leave it on 'full beam' and individual LEDs are switched off, dynamically tracking the position of oncoming cars to spare them a retina scorching as they pass while those facing the kerb can remain at full power'

What about when I'm sitting on a park bench with the road facing me. Or when I live in the house that is opposite a T junction. It must be very clever.....

[neil1jnr]

leglessAlex said:

bobberz said:

Looking forward to seeing being blinded by the new R8, soon. The brightness of modern headlights is a serious issue, even the so-called low beams. By comparison, the headlights on my S3 Alfa Spider seem woefully inadequate, yet are actually okay when I'm not being blinded by oncoming traffic!

I find the adjustment to be much more of a problem than the actual brightness.

I picked up a new Fiesta a couple of days ago and when the salesman was showing me around it he said "and this is the adjuster for the headlamps, you only need to use it if you have something heavy in the back" as he turned it the whole way up.

For a Fiesta this isn't the end of the world (I adjusted them down afterwards anyway) but for something like a van or a 4X4 it means the lights are high enough to be shining right onto the wing mirrors when they inevitably start tailgating you.

With only yourself in the car the headlight should be adjusted to the highest setting like the saleman set it to. You only need to lower the headlight beam the more weight you carry, particularly in the rear when that lowers the rear and raises the front, so your point makes little sense...

[amusingduck]

Modificata said:

MonkeyMatt said:

So the old v new argument has been wheeled out once again

Not sure what argument you refer to as I dont get to read as much as I'd like to on the site. Just giving my opinion.

For me Audi is a company that made cars nearly as good as BMW and Mercedes and has moved into the Sports car market. I will always view Audi as an upmarket VW. Sorry if that upsets some but I remember the days when that was what they were.

You are comparing a new R8 to a used ferrari.

The cheapest R8 on here is a £40k, 2008 model. The cheapest 2008 430 coupe is £78k.
The cheapest 2010 R8 on here is £59k. The cheapest 458 (2010) is £105k.

A quick google gives a Ferrari 430 list price of £112,595.35 in 2008. Which is £136k in today's money. You are not comparing apples with apples.

Not quite sure what your point is about Audi, except that you're stuck in the past. You do realise that the VW group also owns Porsche, Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini; yes?

[Disastrous]

I'm curious - who is still complaining that headlights aren't bright enough?

At what point will car makers say 'yes, we've cracked it - our headlights are definitely bright enough'?

I'm trying to think at what point in my car history I felt I'd reached an acceptable headlight effectiveness level. Certainly my MGB GT (first car) had pretty lacklustre headlights but I think when I went to Uni and got a poverty spec Fiat Bravo, all the road brightness questions I could ask had been answered.

Weird light-obsessed german babies.

[neil1jnr]

I only see this as a good thing, the brighter the better, the more visibility the better.

The article clearly states how the technology works and how it won't blind other people. I don't think I am ever bothered about how bright other peoples headlights are!

[Bonefish Blues]

unsprung said:

alexpa said:

I'm so bored of the manufactures reveal it bit by bit trend of recent years.

The mass majority of the public, which includes the majority of purchasers, simply don't care. It won't even cross their radar.

That leaves the enthusiasts. Why wind us up with articles that show and tell us so little.

Very boring overused worn out marketing. Time for something new people.

As for PH, this is just noise on your site. No meat. Value in traffic? Pah. Where's the value in boring/frustrating your audience, with articles that serve no real purpose other than low quality traffic stats for... boring.

Surely I'm not alone?

Alex

Edited by alexpa on Monday 16th February 11:04

You're right.

Manufacturers should be harnessing fans and motoring enthusiasts. As advocates. And to co-create (to some extent) new cars.

There are bits of this at times. But manufacturers remain rooted in "goods-dominant logic" -- a mindset that prioritises product and sales (ie: push) over customer experience (ie: pull).

This - in spades. Actively annoying, not big, not clever.

Edited by Bonefish Blues on Tuesday 17th February 09:01

[Modificata]

leglessAlex said:

Often when the price of a car is brought up you will often get people saying "I'd buy such and such for much less second hand", but it's not really a valid argument. Comparing new and old is comparing apples and oranges, not to mention that often the cars quoted (such as in this case the F430 vs R8) have different running costs.

Its not really apples and oranges. Essentially you have two mid engined, 2 seater sports cars. Only difference is that one is new and the other is 2nd hand. All Im saying is that I would go for a 2nd hand F4xx over a R8 anyday.

Also you mention running costs. Within that you have to consider total running costs which includes depreciation. Factor that in and the Ferrari probably comes out on top.

[anonymous-user]

CoolHands said:

MonkeyMatt said:

bobberz said:

Looking forward to seeing being blinded by the new R8, soon. The brightness of modern headlights is a serious issue, even the so-called low beams. By comparison, the headlights on my S3 Alfa Spider seem woefully inadequate, yet are actually okay when I'm not being blinded by oncoming traffic!

'The spread of LEDs means the beam can be spread, angled and blanked according to need and without the weight and complexity of mechanically adjusted reflectors. You simply leave it on 'full beam' and individual LEDs are switched off, dynamically tracking the position of oncoming cars to spare them a retina scorching as they pass while those facing the kerb can remain at full power'

What about when I'm sitting on a park bench with the road facing me. Or when I live in the house that is opposite a T junction. It must be very clever.....

Buy some curtains and stop hanging around parks at night

[stephen300o]

Looking at the teaser, it could just be an NSX from that..

[Modificata]

amusingduck said:

You are comparing a new R8 to a used ferrari.

You are not comparing apples with apples.

Not quite sure what your point is about Audi, except that you're stuck in the past. You do realise that the VW group also owns Porsche, Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini; yes?

Please see post above for apples and oranges.

I dont think I am stuck in the past. Dont get me wrong, Audi have come a long way but its trying to play with the big boys. A Nissan GTR might be a fantastic car but its still a Datsun. It doesnt sit in the same league.

All Im saying is that I cannot fathom why someone would spend £100k+ on a Audi when they can purchase a Ferrari (or Lambo/Porsche for that matter). And the market agrees which is why its possible to buy used R8 in the 30's. Even F360s are north of £40k now.

Finally yes I am aware of the VW group and the companies they own (you forgot to al Skoda to that list). I own a detailing company so have the pleasure of working with the dealers of all the models mentioned and more. Surely you are not comparing a Bugatti and an Audi R8? Now that is a different cup of tea.

[amusingduck]

Modificata said:

Please see post above for apples and oranges.

I dont think I am stuck in the past. Dont get me wrong, Audi have come a long way but its trying to play with the big boys. A Nissan GTR might be a fantastic car but its still a Datsun. It doesnt sit in the same league.

All Im saying is that I cannot fathom why someone would spend £100k+ on a Audi when they can purchase a Ferrari (or Lambo/Porsche for that matter). And the market agrees which is why its possible to buy used R8 in the 30's. Even F360s are north of £40k now.

Finally yes I am aware of the VW group and the companies they own (you forgot to al Skoda to that list). I own a detailing company so have the pleasure of working with the dealers of all the models mentioned and more. Surely you are not comparing a Bugatti and an Audi R8? Now that is a different cup of tea.

Nissan haven't been Datsun since 1981. You're stuck in the past.

Why would anyone spend £35k on a new A4 when you could just have a second hand XJ/A8/S Class/7er?

How much was a 360 brand new, adjusted for inflation?

My point about the VW group was to illustrate that being owned by VW does not limit their subsidiaries to being 'tarted up volkswagens'.

[johnnnnnnyy]

Modificata said:

amusingduck said:

You are comparing a new R8 to a used ferrari.

You are not comparing apples with apples.

Not quite sure what your point is about Audi, except that you're stuck in the past. You do realise that the VW group also owns Porsche, Bentley, Bugatti, and Lamborghini; yes?

Please see post above for apples and oranges.

I dont think I am stuck in the past. Dont get me wrong, Audi have come a long way but its trying to play with the big boys. A Nissan GTR might be a fantastic car but its still a Datsun. It doesnt sit in the same league.

All Im saying is that I cannot fathom why someone would spend £100k+ on a Audi when they can purchase a Ferrari (or Lambo/Porsche for that matter). And the market agrees which is why its possible to buy used R8 in the 30's. Even F360s are north of £40k now.

Finally yes I am aware of the VW group and the companies they own (you forgot to al Skoda to that list). I own a detailing company so have the pleasure of working with the dealers of all the models mentioned and more. Surely you are not comparing a Bugatti and an Audi R8? Now that is a different cup of tea.

That argument could be put against your Ferrari comparison... Fiat own Ferrari, therefor Ferrari is just an upmarket Fiat?
(also your previous comment.... I will always view Audi as an upmarket VW. Sorry if that upsets some but I remember the days when that was what they were.)

[leglessAlex]

neil1jnr said:

With only yourself in the car the headlight should be adjusted to the highest setting like the saleman set it to. You only need to lower the headlight beam the more weight you carry, particularly in the rear when that lowers the rear and raises the front, so your point makes little sense...

My point was that even with the headlights 'correctly' adjusted*, some lights are set so high up and are so bright that they shine into wing mirrors and blind the driver of the car in front. It is possible that no one else is affected by this but I find it more than a bit annoying and a little unsafe. I have angled my headlights down slightly as when I am using dipped beams I rarely feel the need to see that far in front. If I really need light ahead of me I'll use the main beam, providing it's safe to do so.

* Obviously, my Fiesta was just an example of how the salesmen are telling people to set their main beams as the lights aren't very high up and are unlikely to case problems for anyone other than Caterham drivers.

[oldtimer2]

jamespink said:

That's kinda the point of the matrix lights. The tiny square of projected light that would hit your car is switched of instantly it sees your cars lights. Very clever. See it explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwLiY-J0bJQ

Interesting video. However it did not show what happens to the light beam when you crest a hill or hit a sleeping policeman, situations which invariably cause dazzle. Do the all the beams then turn off?

[toerag]

pew pew.

[Disastrous]

neil1jnr said:

I only see this as a good thing, the brighter the better, the more visibility the better.

Why? Can't you see ok already?

[anonymous-user]

Disastrous said:

I'm curious - who is still complaining that headlights aren't bright enough?

At what point will car makers say 'yes, we've cracked it - our headlights are definitely bright enough'?

I'm trying to think at what point in my car history I felt I'd reached an acceptable headlight effectiveness level. Certainly my MGB GT (first car) had pretty lacklustre headlights but I think when I went to Uni and got a poverty spec Fiat Bravo, all the road brightness questions I could ask had been answered.

Weird light-obsessed german babies.

This is like all aspects of technology though - you do not know what you are missing until it's been invented.

I certainly would not want the lights of my old Mark 1 Escort if I had the option of some super laser technology. Making driving safer at night cannot be a bad thing. Also for people getting older it can make a huge difference to their nighttime driving pleasure.