RE: SSC To Hit Back At Bugatti's 268mph Veyron

[Twincam16]

off_again said:

Twincam16 said:

You see, I don't get all agitated about sales figures like some people on this site. I don't care how many they sell, I'm just glad it exists.

Unfortunately it does matter. Any fred-in-a-shed can knock out a kit car with a monster engine and claim its the next big thing, but getting them on the road and into customers hands is the big thing. Only then can the car actually move forward developmentally. At the moment its just a few engineers who 'think' they have the best way forward. Only when you get it into the hands of customers will they be able to hone it - due to the small volume of sales. I would love for everyone to succeed, but its not going to happen. They NEED to get it into customer hands and only then can they have any chance of getting it to work.

That's the thing though. I am happy for the car to merely exist, if only as a glorious folly. I couldn't care less if they only sell 5 or if they break down and fall apart or cost £100k to service. I'm happy because it exists. How well they do or how many they sell is of absolutely no concern to me whatsoever.

Some of my faviourite cars (and many cars generally considered to be all-time classics) were flaky, flawed, dated diamonds that sold in tiny numbers and cost their makers millions. The weekend before last hundreds of them were being lovingly fawned over on the lawns of Goodwood.

Take Pegaso for example. Spanish manufacturer that went head-to-head with Ferrari in the '50s. Incredibly advanced supercars, beautiful to behold and insanely valuable nowadays, but when they were new, sold less than 100, nearly bankrupted the firm (who went back to making trucks), hardly made an impact on the racetrack and proved difficult to service and get bits for in the medium-term.

I get the idea that if they turned up nowadays PHers would be willing them to die, willing everyone to lose their jobs and for the company to fold in an 'I-told-you-so' gesture of almost pure spite for daring to take on the world without a viable business plan. When they were new, however, people were amazed by their performance and looks and were just glad they existed. That's how I feel about all these mayfly cars. They're wonderful simply for spicing life's variety. I'm amazed some on here would rather they didn't exist at all and can still call themselves petrolheads.

[JohnGoodridge]

vintageracer01 said:

I don't care for the top speed.

It's a plain ugly kit car, IMO.

+1. When it comes to big speeds in a straight line and around corners I hanker after an Ultima GTR every time.

[CraigyMc]

Twincam16 said:

I'm amazed some on here would rather they didn't exist at all and can still call themselves petrolheads.

That's an understandable feeling.

I think part of the issue folk have with SSC is that they've had their fingers burnt in the past with US supercar builders being snake oil salesmen. Vector?
I'd not suggesting the Aero doesn't do what it says on the tin, just pointing out that part of the bad feeling is learned from experience.

Out of interest, what do you think of the Keating?

C

[Twincam16]

CraigyMc said:

Twincam16 said:

I'm amazed some on here would rather they didn't exist at all and can still call themselves petrolheads.

That's an understandable feeling.

I think part of the issue folk have with SSC is that they've had their fingers burnt in the past with US supercar builders being snake oil salesmen. Vector?
I'd not suggesting the Aero doesn't do what it says on the tin, just pointing out that part of the bad feeling is learned from experience.

Out of interest, what do you think of the Keating?

C

I've actually got up close to a Keating and spoken to a guy who was setting a speed record in a modified one. He reckoned it was a superb bit of very focused kit, great for what he wanted to do with it.

[CraigyMc]

Twincam16 said:

I've actually got up close to a Keating and spoken to a guy who was setting a speed record in a modified one. He reckoned it was a superb bit of very focused kit, great for what he wanted to do with it.

Now, that's interesting. It's another similar sort of story, and yet no bad feeling.

Why? (Anyone?)

C

[Fresh_Clip]

Gawd... here we go again.

Just for some perspective on this whole pi$$ing contest.

Here is a car with low weight and 1100Hp



A nice little Porsche 917-30K.

As you will observe, it has a very comprehensive aero package. That would be to make it controllable at high speed. Also, at the helm in this photograph, is a reasonably decent driver named Mark Donahue. He's a professional racing driver not some rich git with more money than sense. I would expect this 917 is somewhat lighter than the SSC Ultimate Aero (don't the Yanks come up with the most stupid names!) but nonetheless it claims to have an engine that produces over 1100hp. With the SSC having no driver nanny devices, the average driver driving on a public road will either piddle along and never use the power or, in a fit of overconfidence, unleash the 1100+ hp and find themselves in a ditch or under an artic in the wink of an eye.

So the whole exercise is pointless. We all know it is. If you saw someone driving this 917 on the road you'd probably go "WOW!!" but at the same time you'd probably think it was irresponsible and dangerous unleashing a beast like this on a public thoroughfare. It would be.

So a low volume, crude vehicle like the SSC with an 1100hp race motor in it is a stupid and pointless road car and even if they do top 300mph in it (unlikely) it will have proved nothing in the practical sense because it represents a completely useless and dangerous level of power to weight.

In addition to that, the manufacturer talks a good game (power steering, 8 piston brake calipers) Then gives the Autocar a test vehicle with no power steering and 4 potters. A real polished turd.

I can't even be bothered with the Anorak/Jizzed Y-Fronts rating on this one...

[Dagnut]

Fresh_Clip said:

Gawd... here we go again.

Just for some perspective on this whole pi$$ing contest.

Here is a car with low weight and 1100Hp



A nice little Porsche 917-30K.

As you will observe, it has a very comprehensive aero package. That would be to make it controllable at high speed. Also, at the helm in this photograph, is a reasonably decent driver named Mark Donahue. He's a professional racing driver not some rich git with more money than sense. I would expect this 917 is somewhat lighter than the SSC Ultimate Aero (don't the Yanks come up with the most stupid names!) but nonetheless it claims to have an engine that produces over 1100hp. With the SSC having no driver nanny devices, the average driver driving on a public road will either piddle along and never use the power or, in a fit of overconfidence, unleash the 1100+ hp and find themselves in a ditch or under an artic in the wink of an eye.

So the whole exercise is pointless. We all know it is. If you saw someone driving this 917 on the road you'd probably go "WOW!!" but at the same time you'd probably think it was irresponsible and dangerous unleashing a beast like this on a public thoroughfare. It would be.

So a low volume, crude vehicle like the SSC with an 1100hp race motor in it is a stupid and pointless road car and even if they do top 300mph in it (unlikely) it will have proved nothing in the practical sense because it represents a completely useless and dangerous level of power to weight.

In addition to that, the manufacturer talks a good game (power steering, 8 piston brake calipers) Then gives the Autocar a test vehicle with no power steering and 4 potters. A real polished turd.

I can't even be bothered with the Anorak/Jizzed Y-Fronts rating on this one...

You could argue that any car the breaks the speed limit is pointless? Why does it bother people that this car exists..If I seen someone driving an SSC I think he had a huge pair of balls, people getting an adrenaline rush out of a car with superbike performance I can't honestly see why people have such a problem with this.
Ridiculous car snobbery, why is it ok for Noble to start out in a shed and not SCC?

[Twincam16]

Dagnut said:

Fresh_Clip said:

Gawd... here we go again.

Just for some perspective on this whole pi$$ing contest.

Here is a car with low weight and 1100Hp



A nice little Porsche 917-30K.

As you will observe, it has a very comprehensive aero package. That would be to make it controllable at high speed. Also, at the helm in this photograph, is a reasonably decent driver named Mark Donahue. He's a professional racing driver not some rich git with more money than sense. I would expect this 917 is somewhat lighter than the SSC Ultimate Aero (don't the Yanks come up with the most stupid names!) but nonetheless it claims to have an engine that produces over 1100hp. With the SSC having no driver nanny devices, the average driver driving on a public road will either piddle along and never use the power or, in a fit of overconfidence, unleash the 1100+ hp and find themselves in a ditch or under an artic in the wink of an eye.

So the whole exercise is pointless. We all know it is. If you saw someone driving this 917 on the road you'd probably go "WOW!!" but at the same time you'd probably think it was irresponsible and dangerous unleashing a beast like this on a public thoroughfare. It would be.

So a low volume, crude vehicle like the SSC with an 1100hp race motor in it is a stupid and pointless road car and even if they do top 300mph in it (unlikely) it will have proved nothing in the practical sense because it represents a completely useless and dangerous level of power to weight.

In addition to that, the manufacturer talks a good game (power steering, 8 piston brake calipers) Then gives the Autocar a test vehicle with no power steering and 4 potters. A real polished turd.

I can't even be bothered with the Anorak/Jizzed Y-Fronts rating on this one...

You could argue that any car the breaks the speed limit is pointless? Why does it bother people that this car exists..If I seen someone driving an SSC I think he had a huge pair of balls, people getting an adrenaline rush out of a car with superbike performance I can't honestly see why people have such a problem with this.
Ridiculous car snobbery, why is it ok for Noble to start out in a shed and not SCC?

Too True - and never forget that just about every manufacturer started out in a shed. I've got a book about Porsche with a description of their original factory at Gmund in it and it looks and sounds like an old farm outhouse.

[hairykrishna]

Fresh_Clip said:

A nice little Porsche 917-30K.

As you will observe, it has a very comprehensive aero package. That would be to make it controllable at high speed. Also, at the helm in this photograph, is a reasonably decent driver named Mark Donahue. He's a professional racing driver not some rich git with more money than sense. I would expect this 917 is somewhat lighter than the SSC Ultimate Aero (don't the Yanks come up with the most stupid names!) but nonetheless it claims to have an engine that produces over 1100hp. With the SSC having no driver nanny devices, the average driver driving on a public road will either piddle along and never use the power or, in a fit of overconfidence, unleash the 1100+ hp and find themselves in a ditch or under an artic in the wink of an eye.

So the whole exercise is pointless. We all know it is. If you saw someone driving this 917 on the road you'd probably go "WOW!!" but at the same time you'd probably think it was irresponsible and dangerous unleashing a beast like this on a public thoroughfare. It would be.

So a low volume, crude vehicle like the SSC with an 1100hp race motor in it is a stupid and pointless road car and even if they do top 300mph in it (unlikely) it will have proved nothing in the practical sense because it represents a completely useless and dangerous level of power to weight.

In addition to that, the manufacturer talks a good game (power steering, 8 piston brake calipers) Then gives the Autocar a test vehicle with no power steering and 4 potters. A real polished turd.

I can't even be bothered with the Anorak/Jizzed Y-Fronts rating on this one...

Early 70's aero, early 70's tyre tech, >400kg lighter. It's a daft comparison. The Aero will be much, much easier to drive than a 917. The only thing that they have in common is that they have >1000bhp.

Pointless? If you define 'having a point' as being able to use 100% (or close) of the performance on the road then the vast majority of cars owned by people on this site are pointless.

[Kev T]

This is just a pants topic! who cares which of these ridiculous cars is fastest, only somebody with more money than wit would buy one. And where exactly are these plonkers gonna be able to do these speeds anyway. Don't get me wrong i love goin quick in cars jesus i like nothing better than a fast car, and have done since i was small, but i think things have probably gone a bit far now.

[Squabbler]

This is what SSC (and all the rest of contenders) is doing.

There's no point to chase Bugatti achievements as they are multiplying entities which already beyond necessity.

[RudeDog]

I think its going to be this one...

http://www.gtspirit.com/2010/09/04/leaked-ssc-ulti...