Ruf CTR VS Bugatti Veyron
Discussion
flemke said:
roygarth said:
Sorry but that is utter piffle..what's this 'soul' business? Why's a F1 got 'soul' but a Veyron not?
Simple:
Some cars are special because they do things in a new or different way, others are special merely because they do the same things to a greater magnitude.
Yes. Bugatti(
) started by writing down some big numbers, and then built the car.I'd go with the soul comment. Not sure why but the Veyron just doesnt quote have it. I think it is more than just a super car, and I'd love one but it is more of technological marvel than anything else.
that said as I cant streach to either an F1 or a Veyron it's just not a decision I have to put any real thought into and it's the only thing I can see wrong with the car. I still want one...
that said as I cant streach to either an F1 or a Veyron it's just not a decision I have to put any real thought into and it's the only thing I can see wrong with the car. I still want one...
interesting vids; youtube also suggested these mildly terrifying ruf vids
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMN4zaclgr
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fsGEdV8uKe
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nMN4zaclgr
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fsGEdV8uKe
Sort of agree - Bugatti (or rather VW) said make a car with over 1000bhp regardless of cost - voila 1001bhp
Mind you I sort of think the same about the F1 - make the best sports car regardless of cost, and at the time it was. Great car but to me a tuned BMW engine means it doesn't have the same soul/integrity (whatever you want to call it) as a Lambo or Ferrari or TVR.
To me the Veyron is the F1 for the new noughties but with a road car / GT bias. Shame about the two-tone paintwork, would liek to see one in a nice dark metallic blue or grey or black all over. Think that would look great.
Mind you I sort of think the same about the F1 - make the best sports car regardless of cost, and at the time it was. Great car but to me a tuned BMW engine means it doesn't have the same soul/integrity (whatever you want to call it) as a Lambo or Ferrari or TVR.
To me the Veyron is the F1 for the new noughties but with a road car / GT bias. Shame about the two-tone paintwork, would liek to see one in a nice dark metallic blue or grey or black all over. Think that would look great.
Adam B said:
Sort of agree - Bugatti (or rather VW) said make a car with over 1000bhp regardless of cost - voila 1001bhp
Mind you I sort of think the same about the F1 - make the best sports car regardless of cost, and at the time it was. Great car but to me a tuned BMW engine means it doesn't have the same soul/integrity (whatever you want to call it) as a Lambo or Ferrari or TVR.
To me the Veyron is the F1 for the new noughties but with a road car / GT bias. Shame about the two-tone paintwork, would liek to see one in a nice dark metallic blue or grey or black all over. Think that would look great.
Mind you I sort of think the same about the F1 - make the best sports car regardless of cost, and at the time it was. Great car but to me a tuned BMW engine means it doesn't have the same soul/integrity (whatever you want to call it) as a Lambo or Ferrari or TVR.
To me the Veyron is the F1 for the new noughties but with a road car / GT bias. Shame about the two-tone paintwork, would liek to see one in a nice dark metallic blue or grey or black all over. Think that would look great.
nothing a respray couldn't cure
Adam B said:
Mind you I sort of think the same about the F1 - make the best sports car regardless of cost, and at the time it was. Great car but to me a tuned BMW engine means it doesn't have the same soul/integrity (whatever you want to call it) as a Lambo or Ferrari or TVR.
BMW started with a clean sheet of paper. It wasn't a "tuned" anything.
Many people who have vast experience with road cars have said that the car's engine is the best ever put in a road car.
BMW are the guys - in fact, it was the same team - who made those superb engines for the Brabham F1 Championship-winning cars in the early '80s.
BMW cars might be boring, just as Honda cars usually are boring. That doesn't mean that either maker's engines are not fantastic.
If you were to drive the car, I don't think that you would come away saying that the engine lacks soul.
If so, you would be the first, and probably the last as well.
Cheers.
anniesdad said:
Adam B said:
Sort of agree - Bugatti (or rather VW) said make a car with over 1000bhp regardless of cost - voila 1001bhp
They made a car with 1001 ps, which equates to 987bhp IIRC. So they didn't even achieve that target!!
You are correct, however rumors were abound that they over cooked the spec of the engine for one reason and one reason only; that because of the hype about the "1000ps", there was noway that any owner on earth should be faced with the possibility of putting their car on a rolling road and it not making 4 figures. Therefore, the reality is more like 1050bhp...."apparently".
flemke said:
Adam B said:
Mind you I sort of think the same about the F1 - make the best sports car regardless of cost, and at the time it was. Great car but to me a tuned BMW engine means it doesn't have the same soul/integrity (whatever you want to call it) as a Lambo or Ferrari or TVR.
BMW started with a clean sheet of paper. It wasn't a "tuned" anything.
Many people who have vast experience with road cars have said that the car's engine is the best ever put in a road car.
BMW are the guys - in fact, it was the same team - who made those superb engines for the Brabham F1 Championship-winning cars in the early '80s.
BMW cars might be boring, just as Honda cars usually are boring. That doesn't mean that either maker's engines are not fantastic.
If you were to drive the car, I don't think that you would come away saying that the engine lacks soul.
If so, you would be the first, and probably the last as well.
Cheers.
Lets get my comments into context here.
I am talking guff about a guffy (!) subject - a chunk of metal having soul. My inexperienced opinion (freely admit I've never even sat in an F1) is that some things that may count against a car in this highly subjective discussion are a) design by committee / eccentric chairman or b) an engine designed by a different company no matter how brilliant it is.
flemke old boy - don't take my comments as anything more than that, after all you own a McLaren F1 and other exotica, I currently drive a VW Polo. Its pretty clear who is casting envious glances at who here
anniesdad said:
Adam B said:
Sort of agree - Bugatti (or rather VW) said make a car with over 1000bhp regardless of cost - voila 1001bhp
They made a car with 1001 ps, which equates to 987bhp IIRC. So they didn't even achieve that target!!
That's not entirely true though, I thought Bugatti say the cars make a minimum of 1001ps and they generally make a bit more than that.
Adam B said:
I am talking guff about a guffy (!) subject - a chunk of metal having soul. My inexperienced opinion (freely admit I've never even sat in an F1) is that some things that may count against a car in this highly subjective discussion are a) design by committee / eccentric chairman or b) an engine designed by a different company no matter how brilliant it is.
Adam,
I was not trying to be argumentative. I'm just a great admirer of what Murray and team made. To me, their achievement has as much as or more soul than almost any car that I can think of, certainly more than most Italian pieces of crap whose makers try to pretend that there is no difference between "character" and a complete lack of quality control.
I think that a chunk of metal can have as much soul as a living creature.
On the one hand, the inanimate object was conceived and built by living creatures; on the other hand, we don't know that living creatures have "souls" anyhow.
I quite agree that if something is designed by a committee, it is less likely to have: a clear sense of purpose, an integrated ethos, panache, boldness, spirit.
I'n not sure that, in order to have soul, a car needs its engine to have been built by its constructor. That would mean that Stewart's Tyrrells and Clark's Lotuses and Senna's McLarens lacked soul.
How about the gearbox? Tyres? At what point does the manufacture of something by a specialist who knows more than a generalist does vitiate the integrity of a car?
It seems to me that a car's soul is infused by the quality of the minds, hearts and hands that conceived and built it. Whether they all worked in the same building or within the same ownership structure is rather irrelevant.
Cheers.
Adam B said:
I currently drive a VW Polo. Its pretty clear who is casting envious glances at who here
Anyone get sick to death of all these bloody posh car owners coming in here and showing off. Just because you own a Polo doesn't mean your better than us or have more money, how do you know I could not afford a Polo, you don't know how much I earn
Note to self: Stop going to Metro owners forum
Here's a Porsche owner talking about taking delivery of his Veyron & his first impressions (he still loves his Porsche BTW)
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums
http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums
Edited by martind on Tuesday 5th December 13:09
Delicious thread, particularly when we get into the realms of what constitutes ‘charisma’, ‘soul’ or ‘guff’ in a motor car. Gets me excited.
I must chime in because sometimes these throw away statements give wrong impressions which seem to adhere like bar-talk. I’m not getting on your case Adam B, but calling the McLaren F1 motor a ‘a tuned BMW engine’ and comparing it to a TVR motor, is rather like calling Ramsey’s work ‘fast food’ or Picasso a ‘decorator’.
We’re talking about a bespoke motor that creates huge horsepower throughout the rev range in a fashion that only variable valve timing can. The noise changes in depth and resonance adding a deafening aural dimension which changes as the revs rise. A couple of days back, I had experience of the Enzo engine which is more akin to the amazing motor in the back of the Carrera GT and thrives more on higher revs. We’re probably all aware as to how they sound so ‘modern’ and efficient in their delivery (and make V8s history IMHO).
Quite why the adding of turbochargers lessens an engine charisma must have something to do with the noise dampening effect and lower compression ratios. Gordon was right, but over the years, I grew extremely fond of the way turbocharged motors work though; they add an ‘elastic’ dimension to the way you can dip into the power and take on the road pattern or squish the opposition ahead. Their awesome engines are like your own weather systems; like a block of flats being demolished.
Non-turbocharged engines are so one dimensional in their power delivery, a slightly mistimed gearshift or less accurate heel & toe sends big shock waves through transmission systems; they need an extremely educated right foot, the trickiness of which I don’t particularly welcome when high g-forces are in the mix. Yes, I realize that’s their appeal.
I do think of both the CTR and Veyron as ‘charismatic’, though the Veyron would appear to again have it’s overall appeal dampened rather like the 911 Turbo, by the rather numbing effect of all wheel drive. Nevertheless, again as with the Turbo, all this will pall against the arguments about just how fast the Veyron is up any given stretch of road. Yes the 16.4s certainly do all give closer to 1050 hp and as I’ve said before, the car is tricked up so much by it’s transmission and drive systems allowing the pilot to absolutely concentrate on the car’s slip attitude for the road ahead. There ain’t no ‘straights’ in the Veyron (very few), so it’s slip all the way, and it becomes all about adjustability, balance and immense grip to allow confident use of all that mungo. You will need two hands. (… when you go quicker than anything else.)
It’s sheer speed is a new dimension which I believe we don’t yet readily understand as adding ‘charisma’. But my mate here says ‘charisma’ is a manifestation of a fault, so in my book, the Veyron will take a while before it’s public appreciate the hugeness of it’s performance over the ground, overall. It’s outright speed is the new sensation; the accessibility the new key to it’s ‘sole’. It’s absolute ‘hammer’ is what’s resented, as in any newcomer on the block, particularly when it is the ‘fastest’ and lives top of an uncompromising food chain.
Sorry, but if ‘guff’ is the brand name given to how cars, things mechanical, sound, feel and perform when they respond, then I apologise for getting all the above guff off my chest so publicly.
I must chime in because sometimes these throw away statements give wrong impressions which seem to adhere like bar-talk. I’m not getting on your case Adam B, but calling the McLaren F1 motor a ‘a tuned BMW engine’ and comparing it to a TVR motor, is rather like calling Ramsey’s work ‘fast food’ or Picasso a ‘decorator’.
We’re talking about a bespoke motor that creates huge horsepower throughout the rev range in a fashion that only variable valve timing can. The noise changes in depth and resonance adding a deafening aural dimension which changes as the revs rise. A couple of days back, I had experience of the Enzo engine which is more akin to the amazing motor in the back of the Carrera GT and thrives more on higher revs. We’re probably all aware as to how they sound so ‘modern’ and efficient in their delivery (and make V8s history IMHO).
Quite why the adding of turbochargers lessens an engine charisma must have something to do with the noise dampening effect and lower compression ratios. Gordon was right, but over the years, I grew extremely fond of the way turbocharged motors work though; they add an ‘elastic’ dimension to the way you can dip into the power and take on the road pattern or squish the opposition ahead. Their awesome engines are like your own weather systems; like a block of flats being demolished.
Non-turbocharged engines are so one dimensional in their power delivery, a slightly mistimed gearshift or less accurate heel & toe sends big shock waves through transmission systems; they need an extremely educated right foot, the trickiness of which I don’t particularly welcome when high g-forces are in the mix. Yes, I realize that’s their appeal.
I do think of both the CTR and Veyron as ‘charismatic’, though the Veyron would appear to again have it’s overall appeal dampened rather like the 911 Turbo, by the rather numbing effect of all wheel drive. Nevertheless, again as with the Turbo, all this will pall against the arguments about just how fast the Veyron is up any given stretch of road. Yes the 16.4s certainly do all give closer to 1050 hp and as I’ve said before, the car is tricked up so much by it’s transmission and drive systems allowing the pilot to absolutely concentrate on the car’s slip attitude for the road ahead. There ain’t no ‘straights’ in the Veyron (very few), so it’s slip all the way, and it becomes all about adjustability, balance and immense grip to allow confident use of all that mungo. You will need two hands. (… when you go quicker than anything else.)
It’s sheer speed is a new dimension which I believe we don’t yet readily understand as adding ‘charisma’. But my mate here says ‘charisma’ is a manifestation of a fault, so in my book, the Veyron will take a while before it’s public appreciate the hugeness of it’s performance over the ground, overall. It’s outright speed is the new sensation; the accessibility the new key to it’s ‘sole’. It’s absolute ‘hammer’ is what’s resented, as in any newcomer on the block, particularly when it is the ‘fastest’ and lives top of an uncompromising food chain.
Sorry, but if ‘guff’ is the brand name given to how cars, things mechanical, sound, feel and perform when they respond, then I apologise for getting all the above guff off my chest so publicly.
ph123 said:
Delicious thread, particularly when we get into the realms of what constitutes ‘charisma’, ‘soul’ or ‘guff’ in a motor car. Gets me excited.
I must chime in because sometimes these throw away statements give wrong impressions which seem to adhere like bar-talk. I’m not getting on your case Adam B, but calling the McLaren F1 motor a ‘a tuned BMW engine’ and comparing it to a TVR motor, is rather like calling Ramsey’s work ‘fast food’ or Picasso a ‘decorator’.
We’re talking about a bespoke motor that creates huge horsepower throughout the rev range in a fashion that only variable valve timing can. The noise changes in depth and resonance adding a deafening aural dimension which changes as the revs rise. A couple of days back, I had experience of the Enzo engine which is more akin to the amazing motor in the back of the Carrera GT and thrives more on higher revs. We’re probably all aware as to how they sound so ‘modern’ and efficient in their delivery (and make V8s history IMHO).
Quite why the adding of turbochargers lessens an engine charisma must have something to do with the noise dampening effect and lower compression ratios. Gordon was right, but over the years, I grew extremely fond of the way turbocharged motors work though; they add an ‘elastic’ dimension to the way you can dip into the power and take on the road pattern or squish the opposition ahead. Their awesome engines are like your own weather systems; like a block of flats being demolished.
Non-turbocharged engines are so one dimensional in their power delivery, a slightly mistimed gearshift or less accurate heel & toe sends big shock waves through transmission systems; they need an extremely educated right foot, the trickiness of which I don’t particularly welcome when high g-forces are in the mix. Yes, I realize that’s their appeal.
I do think of both the CTR and Veyron as ‘charismatic’, though the Veyron would appear to again have it’s overall appeal dampened rather like the 911 Turbo, by the rather numbing effect of all wheel drive. Nevertheless, again as with the Turbo, all this will pall against the arguments about just how fast the Veyron is up any given stretch of road. Yes the 16.4s certainly do all give closer to 1050 hp and as I’ve said before, the car is tricked up so much by it’s transmission and drive systems allowing the pilot to absolutely concentrate on the car’s slip attitude for the road ahead. There ain’t no ‘straights’ in the Veyron (very few), so it’s slip all the way, and it becomes all about adjustability, balance and immense grip to allow confident use of all that mungo. You will need two hands. (… when you go quicker than anything else.)
It’s sheer speed is a new dimension which I believe we don’t yet readily understand as adding ‘charisma’. But my mate here says ‘charisma’ is a manifestation of a fault, so in my book, the Veyron will take a while before it’s public appreciate the hugeness of it’s performance over the ground, overall. It’s outright speed is the new sensation; the accessibility the new key to it’s ‘sole’. It’s absolute ‘hammer’ is what’s resented, as in any newcomer on the block, particularly when it is the ‘fastest’ and lives top of an uncompromising food chain.
Sorry, but if ‘guff’ is the brand name given to how cars, things mechanical, sound, feel and perform when they respond, then I apologise for getting all the above guff off my chest so publicly.
....ph123, dear sir please dont apologise for ANY of the above because i think it sums things up very well indeed..I must chime in because sometimes these throw away statements give wrong impressions which seem to adhere like bar-talk. I’m not getting on your case Adam B, but calling the McLaren F1 motor a ‘a tuned BMW engine’ and comparing it to a TVR motor, is rather like calling Ramsey’s work ‘fast food’ or Picasso a ‘decorator’.
We’re talking about a bespoke motor that creates huge horsepower throughout the rev range in a fashion that only variable valve timing can. The noise changes in depth and resonance adding a deafening aural dimension which changes as the revs rise. A couple of days back, I had experience of the Enzo engine which is more akin to the amazing motor in the back of the Carrera GT and thrives more on higher revs. We’re probably all aware as to how they sound so ‘modern’ and efficient in their delivery (and make V8s history IMHO).
Quite why the adding of turbochargers lessens an engine charisma must have something to do with the noise dampening effect and lower compression ratios. Gordon was right, but over the years, I grew extremely fond of the way turbocharged motors work though; they add an ‘elastic’ dimension to the way you can dip into the power and take on the road pattern or squish the opposition ahead. Their awesome engines are like your own weather systems; like a block of flats being demolished.
Non-turbocharged engines are so one dimensional in their power delivery, a slightly mistimed gearshift or less accurate heel & toe sends big shock waves through transmission systems; they need an extremely educated right foot, the trickiness of which I don’t particularly welcome when high g-forces are in the mix. Yes, I realize that’s their appeal.
I do think of both the CTR and Veyron as ‘charismatic’, though the Veyron would appear to again have it’s overall appeal dampened rather like the 911 Turbo, by the rather numbing effect of all wheel drive. Nevertheless, again as with the Turbo, all this will pall against the arguments about just how fast the Veyron is up any given stretch of road. Yes the 16.4s certainly do all give closer to 1050 hp and as I’ve said before, the car is tricked up so much by it’s transmission and drive systems allowing the pilot to absolutely concentrate on the car’s slip attitude for the road ahead. There ain’t no ‘straights’ in the Veyron (very few), so it’s slip all the way, and it becomes all about adjustability, balance and immense grip to allow confident use of all that mungo. You will need two hands. (… when you go quicker than anything else.)
It’s sheer speed is a new dimension which I believe we don’t yet readily understand as adding ‘charisma’. But my mate here says ‘charisma’ is a manifestation of a fault, so in my book, the Veyron will take a while before it’s public appreciate the hugeness of it’s performance over the ground, overall. It’s outright speed is the new sensation; the accessibility the new key to it’s ‘sole’. It’s absolute ‘hammer’ is what’s resented, as in any newcomer on the block, particularly when it is the ‘fastest’ and lives top of an uncompromising food chain.
Sorry, but if ‘guff’ is the brand name given to how cars, things mechanical, sound, feel and perform when they respond, then I apologise for getting all the above guff off my chest so publicly.
roygarth said:
anniesdad said:
But other than the cars obvious performance attributes where is its soul? All the cars you mentioned above have a soul, I just don't see that with the Veyron. It's a technological marvel of that there is no doubt but if I wanted to match the Veyron's performance I could buy an Ultima GTR and put a bit more oomph in it. If I wanted a performance GT car in the mould of a Veyron I could buy a 599 GTB and have a lot of change left over. If I wanted to buy the most exciting performance car of all time I could buy a McLaren F1.
Does your friend think the car will be a keeper?
Edited by anniesdad on Monday 4th December 23:16
Sorry but that is utter piffle..what's this 'soul' business? Why's a F1 got 'soul' but a Veyron not? If I could afford a Veyron why would I look at an Ultima? Ferrari 559? just buy one as well! F1? The lucky sod's already had two!
flemke said:
I was not trying to be argumentative. .
Never thought it for one second sir - you must have missed my
at the end. And you make a very good case for the F1 and I assume are in a great position to judge it against its peers unlike I. But to me this "guff" is all very personal and non-logical and nothing to do with the capability of the car. To me a Morris Minor Traveller has more soul than any AMG Merc - doesn't mean I want to own one or I think it better than the Merc in any way. F1 leaves me a little cold as does the Veyron although I admire them both immensely - can't explain why and its all a bit academic as I am unlikely to be in the fortunate position of being to afford to own either. A 911 is all I am aiming at for now!
at housemasterGassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff