Ruf CTR VS Bugatti Veyron
Discussion
Thanks very much Adam, great vids.
The perforemance of the two cars is quite different as their test figs show;
CTR....0-100=6.7...0-150=14.5...0-200=35.5
Veyron.0-100=2.5...0-150=10.8...0-200=22.8
FL.FI..0-100=3.0...0-150=11.2...0-200=22.0
I have added the F1 for comparison. You may see a 'good' F1 will lose at the start but not at higher speeds.
It is also a pity the Veyron dose not get near its claimed figuers.
Mark
The perforemance of the two cars is quite different as their test figs show;
CTR....0-100=6.7...0-150=14.5...0-200=35.5
Veyron.0-100=2.5...0-150=10.8...0-200=22.8
FL.FI..0-100=3.0...0-150=11.2...0-200=22.0
I have added the F1 for comparison. You may see a 'good' F1 will lose at the start but not at higher speeds.
It is also a pity the Veyron dose not get near its claimed figuers.
Mark
markbe said:
Thanks very much Adam, great vids.
The perforemance of the two cars is quite different as their test figs show;
CTR....0-100=6.7...0-150=14.5...0-200=35.5
Veyron.0-100=2.5...0-150=10.8...0-200=22.8
FL.FI..0-100=3.0...0-150=11.2...0-200=22.0
I have added the F1 for comparison. You may see a 'good' F1 will lose at the start but not at higher speeds.
It is also a pity the Veyron dose not get near its claimed figuers.
Mark
now now markbe, The perforemance of the two cars is quite different as their test figs show;
CTR....0-100=6.7...0-150=14.5...0-200=35.5
Veyron.0-100=2.5...0-150=10.8...0-200=22.8
FL.FI..0-100=3.0...0-150=11.2...0-200=22.0
I have added the F1 for comparison. You may see a 'good' F1 will lose at the start but not at higher speeds.
It is also a pity the Veyron dose not get near its claimed figuers.
Mark
are you sure your telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the autocar truth there?...discounting the ctr, ones actual factual & ones presumed preffered but not quite confirmed yet (not by ME anyway!!)...theres still almost 6secs in it if we are to believe naughtycar magazine!....
mr bridger said:
markbe said:
Thanks very much Adam, great vids.
The perforemance of the two cars is quite different as their test figs show;
CTR....0-100=6.7...0-150=14.5...0-200=35.5
Veyron.0-100=2.5...0-150=10.8...0-200=22.8
FL.FI..0-100=3.0...0-150=11.2...0-200=22.0
I have added the F1 for comparison. You may see a 'good' F1 will lose at the start but not at higher speeds.
It is also a pity the Veyron dose not get near its claimed figuers.
Mark
now now markbe, The perforemance of the two cars is quite different as their test figs show;
CTR....0-100=6.7...0-150=14.5...0-200=35.5
Veyron.0-100=2.5...0-150=10.8...0-200=22.8
FL.FI..0-100=3.0...0-150=11.2...0-200=22.0
I have added the F1 for comparison. You may see a 'good' F1 will lose at the start but not at higher speeds.
It is also a pity the Veyron dose not get near its claimed figuers.
Mark
are you sure your telling the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the autocar truth there?...discounting the ctr, ones actual factual & ones presumed preferred but not quite confirmed yet (not by ME anyway!!)...theres still almost 6SECS in it if we are to believe naughtycar magazine!....4.4 secs if you take naughty Autos figs,but you have to change with new information as it happens.
Anyway The Bristol thingy will be quicker
..And that car certainly has Character
Mark
Adam B said:
But to me this "guff" is all very personal and non-logical and nothing to do with the capability of the car
agreed. strangely i have no passion for any supercar other than f40 and cgt. one a clinical, ugly, engineering solution to the nurburg adenau commute. one the sexyest (sp?) car ever made (bar the db4gtz), that's probably too fragile to use as i'd want to and been glued together by chimps. who knows why F1, veyron, zonda etc... dont do it for me and who cares? like you say its personal and illogical.
Edited by francisb on Tuesday 5th December 16:01
adamt said:
Im pretty sure auto motor und sport tested the veyron at 18.9s to 300kmh...though dont quote me on that 
best
a
i"m planning (as we speak) an official verified independant test of both the bug & F1 on the M1 between J50 & 51 on the 1st april 07 at precisely 12:61pm...but best dont tell the B.I.B..... best
a
mr bridger said:
adamt said:
Im pretty sure auto motor und sport tested the veyron at 18.9s to 300kmh...though dont quote me on that
best
a
i"m planning (as we speak) an official verified independant test of both the bug & F1 on the M1 between J50 & 51 on the 1st april 07 at precisely 12:61pm...but best dont tell the B.I.B..... best
a
Thats Scotland isnt it.??
Mark
You mean Feb 29 @ 12:61pm 2007.
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
adamt said:
Im pretty sure auto motor und sport tested the veyron at 18.9s to 300kmh...though dont quote me on that
best
a
i"m planning (as we speak) an official verified independant test of both the bug & F1 on the M1 between J50 & 51 on the 1st april 07 at precisely 12:61pm...but best dont tell the B.I.B..... best
a
Thats Scotland isnt it.??
Mark
You mean Feb 29 @ 12:61pm 2007.
..1st APRIL / APRIL THE 1st @ 12:61PM.......soz markbe, couldnt help it after that bristol nonsense you wrote!....mr bridger said:
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
adamt said:
Im pretty sure auto motor und sport tested the veyron at 18.9s to 300kmh...though dont quote me on that
best
a
i"m planning (as we speak) an official verified independant test of both the bug & F1 on the M1 between J50 & 51 on the 1st april 07 at precisely 12:61pm...but best dont tell the B.I.B..... best
a
Thats Scotland isnt it.??
Mark
You mean Feb 29 @ 12:61pm 2007.
..1st APRIL / APRIL THE 1st @ 12:61PM.......soz markbe, couldnt help it after that bristol nonsense you wrote!....Bristol nonsense you say,well how does 650 bhp ton grab you on normal fuel????
Veyron is 540 bhp ton for your comparative purposes,like I said its got character
Mark
.
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
adamt said:
Im pretty sure auto motor und sport tested the veyron at 18.9s to 300kmh...though dont quote me on that
best
a
i"m planning (as we speak) an official verified independant test of both the bug & F1 on the M1 between J50 & 51 on the 1st april 07 at precisely 12:61pm...but best dont tell the B.I.B..... best
a
Thats Scotland isnt it.??
Mark
You mean Feb 29 @ 12:61pm 2007.
..1st APRIL / APRIL THE 1st @ 12:61PM.......soz markbe, couldnt help it after that bristol nonsense you wrote!....Bristol nonsense you say,well how does 650 bhp ton grab you on normal fuel????
Veyron is 540 bhp ton for your comparative purposes,like I said its got character
Mark
.mr bridger said:
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
adamt said:
Im pretty sure auto motor und sport tested the veyron at 18.9s to 300kmh...though dont quote me on that
best
a
i"m planning (as we speak) an official verified independant test of both the bug & F1 on the M1 between J50 & 51 on the 1st april 07 at precisely 12:61pm...but best dont tell the B.I.B..... best
a
Thats Scotland isnt it.??
Mark
You mean Feb 29 @ 12:61pm 2007.
..1st APRIL / APRIL THE 1st @ 12:61PM.......soz markbe, couldnt help it after that bristol nonsense you wrote!....Bristol nonsense you say,well how does 650 bhp ton grab you on normal fuel????
Veyron is 540 bhp ton for your comparative purposes,like I said its got character
Mark
.Cd of 2.8 makes it a competitor, eh,whats wrong with the connaught club,
Its ok in a 640 bhp per ton quirky, must try it once, sort of way.
mark
Very interesting comments from all concerned. Excuse my ignorance but "Guff" I presume means a perception of how envolving a particular car is to drive. Perception is often very different from reality. These are some of my own real life experiences. Back in around 1991 a mate offered me a drive of his 89 3.2 carrera. Back then these were still suffering from the yuppy car image and my own impression of a 911 Porsche was that of an overgrown VW Beetle. That was until I drove one. One of the most envolving cars I have ever driven and it felt like that if you ran over a matchbox you could tell the manufacturers name that was on the box. That was what started me on the slippery slope of 911 ownership and led me into racing them. As PH123 stated normally aspirated can be somewhat mundane against the torque reponses that you get with a Turbo engine.
However pre 996's have a certain camminess about them that makes them great fun to drive. 2.7 RS's, the 3.2 Carrera and the 964 all had that extra shove over a particular rpm. 996 supercup cars are incredibly competent race cars but they have a very flat power band that in truth does not make them fun to drive. Their only saving grace is that yes they are quick and have a lot of grip through the twisty bits and phenonimal brakes. So as long as you can win races with them then it is a great car. However in truth I probably had the most fun racing a 3.2 Carrera Super Sport more than anything else I have raced since. Why because it was a pig to drive, no power steering or abs and I was competing against 928GTS's, Carrera 2's, 968 CS's and 944 turbo's which made you work bloody hard and forced you to hone your driving skills just to keep up let alone finish in the top three.
The F40 is the only Ferrari that I thought I would really want to own. I have never driven one but have sat in one. It is way to basic and I do not want another stripped out race car for the road. Another chap I now bought one a few years back and as he said you take it out for a spin once every couple of months and then put it back in the garage. His other half refuses to go in it anymore as it just makes her feel sick. He owns in the region of twenty plus cars including a Carrera GT and 962 and she is a pure petrolhead. I have been faithfully promised a drive of the 962 in 2007.
Now back to the original topic. You cannot truthfully comment on a car until you have had the first hand experience of driving it. (never judge a book by its cover) In truth when I first set eyes on the Veyron my immediate thoughts were Audi TT on steriods. But after spending time with her I have to admit I fell in love and again as stated previously this really is a new breed of hypercar. Yes you still need the ability to drive and if you have that ability and confidence then the Veyron is as envolving and rewarding as any of the best I have ever driven. If it was rwd only I'm not sure that it would allow you to retain your upmost confidence in the cars ability. I'll reserve that judgement for when a wonderfully nice chap I know who has a great sense of humour, good looks, sophistication etc. etc. (do you think that was enough grovelling) allows me to drive his Maca F1.
However pre 996's have a certain camminess about them that makes them great fun to drive. 2.7 RS's, the 3.2 Carrera and the 964 all had that extra shove over a particular rpm. 996 supercup cars are incredibly competent race cars but they have a very flat power band that in truth does not make them fun to drive. Their only saving grace is that yes they are quick and have a lot of grip through the twisty bits and phenonimal brakes. So as long as you can win races with them then it is a great car. However in truth I probably had the most fun racing a 3.2 Carrera Super Sport more than anything else I have raced since. Why because it was a pig to drive, no power steering or abs and I was competing against 928GTS's, Carrera 2's, 968 CS's and 944 turbo's which made you work bloody hard and forced you to hone your driving skills just to keep up let alone finish in the top three.
The F40 is the only Ferrari that I thought I would really want to own. I have never driven one but have sat in one. It is way to basic and I do not want another stripped out race car for the road. Another chap I now bought one a few years back and as he said you take it out for a spin once every couple of months and then put it back in the garage. His other half refuses to go in it anymore as it just makes her feel sick. He owns in the region of twenty plus cars including a Carrera GT and 962 and she is a pure petrolhead. I have been faithfully promised a drive of the 962 in 2007.
Now back to the original topic. You cannot truthfully comment on a car until you have had the first hand experience of driving it. (never judge a book by its cover) In truth when I first set eyes on the Veyron my immediate thoughts were Audi TT on steriods. But after spending time with her I have to admit I fell in love and again as stated previously this really is a new breed of hypercar. Yes you still need the ability to drive and if you have that ability and confidence then the Veyron is as envolving and rewarding as any of the best I have ever driven. If it was rwd only I'm not sure that it would allow you to retain your upmost confidence in the cars ability. I'll reserve that judgement for when a wonderfully nice chap I know who has a great sense of humour, good looks, sophistication etc. etc. (do you think that was enough grovelling) allows me to drive his Maca F1.
mr bridger said:
adamt said:
Im pretty sure auto motor und sport tested the veyron at 18.9s to 300kmh...though dont quote me on that
best
a
i"m planning (as we speak) an official verified independant test of both the bug & F1 on the M1 between J50 & 51 on the 1st april 07 at precisely 12:61pm...but best dont tell the B.I.B..... best
a
April Fools' Day diversions aside, the HDK has a substantial effect on the car's mid-high speed acceleration, as well of course on max speed.
ph123 said:
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.
As others have observed, 123, you make many good points.
If I may take exception to a few things:
- "Charisma" by no means is a manifestation of fault. It is a manifestation of specialness.
Ayrton Senna had charisma. Ali has it still; Pele and Merckx as well. They had bags of charisma because of what they did AND HOW THEY DID IT.
- The Veyron's outright speed may be the new sensation, as you put it. The problem - and this is one of its inescapable weaknesses - is that it is impossible to access any meaningful portion of that new sensation on almost any part of planet Earth at almost any time. Certain other cars have a much broader, richer array of talents and appeal, most of which are at least partially accessible in real life.
- I'm not sure of what you mean by "Its absolute 'hammer' is what's resented".
If you mean that people resent the Veyron because the F1 is no longer the world's fastest whatever, I could not disagree more.
If anyone else made a car that was NA, with a superb engine note, no servo-anything, no driver aids, unique driving position, no fussy details, good looking, great build quality, an outgrowth of one of the most focused, successful racing histories in the sport, and THAT car had done 403 kph, we all would say, "Amen, brother. You have well and truly eclipsed everything else, including the F1."
But that's not what they did. They created an overweight, ugly, insect-like lump with staggering power, very sophisticated stability management, a super-effective gearbox that is utterly joyless, and an extending rear flap that works great and looks awful.
Then there are the girlie-frills on the console and the special key that you must use to be allowed to go faster. At least Bscher cancelled the plan to stick diamonds on the instruments.
Those of us who disdain the Veyron, notwithstanding its amazing technology, do so not because of the 'hammer', but, rather, because there is so little to the car apart from the hammer.
The car obviously was conceived and developed with that hammer as the centre of its universe, rather than as an essential element of a greater whole.
Edited by flemke on Wednesday 6th December 00:35
Thank you again for sharing your most respected opinions Flemke; I hope I can respond not unnecessarily, as I believe we probably sit the same side of the fence, with similar perspectives, unlike the cars we refer too.
I think I maybe overly sensitive to this business of the Veyron being projected in comparison as an overweight lifeless lump in your distain, and a few other inexperienced so called petrolheads do now conceive. But of course, in order for VAG to achieve differentiation from the McLaren, Koenigsegg and Saleen and Enzo etc, and complete this project at all, they had to come at it as only a large manufacturer legally can: properly engineered to do a very complete job of best-in-the-world quality, proper road going comfort (and fastest in the world) to a large world target market. Which, I think you concur, caused them much more hideous toil than Murray and the Merry single Minded McLaren Men.
As we all know Gordon came at the F1 with a target weight of 1000 kg (which he failed, not by much; we’ll forgive that) and as much as I would defend the McLaren car completely, I personally felt it finally stood for what it was; a car built by a formula one team who had built formula one cars for world champions and demonstrate their brand technology (which worked: along came Mercedes.)
But in terms of a producing a car to work, live and play with for a decent target market, it was compromised. It is a car that does only fully reward a quite skillful driver, who can access the finer points. Just opening the McLaren throttle was a job in itself. I was not surprised to see the work that you have so courageously undertaken in order to finish off the project.
Don’t give me that Gordon didn’t focus quite seriously on the ultimate top speed part of the F1 package. That car is built seriously narrow with most systems breaking new ground in order to cope with the power to weight to make 240 mph. Now describing Bugatti efforts to make workable 400 kph car as providing ‘so little’ else is nonsense. If ‘charisma’ as you define it is ‘specialness’ which in this case of the two hyper cars alludes to the way they feel when you drive, then I would point out that the way the McLaren behaves when you suddenly lift off (the accelerator) at 200 mph does not happen in the Veyron. I know how that made me feel.
Like wise, pottering around winter wet London streets in the Veyron is indeed so very special, but not a home to enjoy your delicious gearbox, deaf brakes, and murderous steering and bollock naked throttle response. Only the F40 came across as more difficult to get out of town. Yes, they were ‘special’ alright.
But you get none of that with the Veyron; so that real people can access a car at home for a '200 mph on the way to Le Mans' moment, as well as well as making a fun visit to the Serpentine Gallery in a dinner jacket, air conned music playing, without breaking into a sweat and not guaranteeing a headache to the passenger. No wonder you leave the McLaren in Germany or wherever.
If the German styling leaves you cold, well that’s personal isn’t it? Porsches were the original ugly (green) frogs, but now they’re an icon, at least to those with automotive engineering sympathies. Maybe the same will happen to the Veyron. It’s what the visuals stand for and that needs to be given time to be appreciated.
I am surprised at your attitude towards the gearbox. If your train set needs to emit steam to be attractive to you, well great. My 2 litre Felday modified Transit was a great tool to learn the Nurburgring in. But it’s not progressing the car very much is it? And I’d further suggest that for a really quick driver to exploit a super quick car as alluded too in my previous post, he won’t need the distraction of having the right cogs engaged, by shifting ruddy pedals and levers, at the right time in the right place and in the right throttle quantity. Have you dropped your semaphore to green yet? (Hey, Trix Twin is my favourite but electric!). The Veyron powertrain is totally amazing and breaks new ground as far as I can see; everything else is a halfway house. Joyless? Do me a favour.
It seems to me that unofficially, half the objective on any of these charismatic supercars is to be the fastest at getting up any particular road (even if it has to remain theoretical 90% of the time). I completely celebrate the fact probably, the Veyron sees of all comers on 99% of circumstances including all these pseudo race cars AND the genuine articles. For me, it gives full credibility to, as I’ve pointed out before, the father of the Porsche 917 and the Audi Quattro, and Piech's vision of how they come together and provide a quantum leap forward. Finally. The final word in quality automotive engineering, top of the food chain. The fastest too.
Finally for me, I celebrate the car; personally, selling them and racing them has been my (fantastic) life (outside the home). And the Veyron, is where it has got to. And that’s just fine; however, I will enjoy them all thank you. Completely IMHO.
I think I maybe overly sensitive to this business of the Veyron being projected in comparison as an overweight lifeless lump in your distain, and a few other inexperienced so called petrolheads do now conceive. But of course, in order for VAG to achieve differentiation from the McLaren, Koenigsegg and Saleen and Enzo etc, and complete this project at all, they had to come at it as only a large manufacturer legally can: properly engineered to do a very complete job of best-in-the-world quality, proper road going comfort (and fastest in the world) to a large world target market. Which, I think you concur, caused them much more hideous toil than Murray and the Merry single Minded McLaren Men.
As we all know Gordon came at the F1 with a target weight of 1000 kg (which he failed, not by much; we’ll forgive that) and as much as I would defend the McLaren car completely, I personally felt it finally stood for what it was; a car built by a formula one team who had built formula one cars for world champions and demonstrate their brand technology (which worked: along came Mercedes.)
But in terms of a producing a car to work, live and play with for a decent target market, it was compromised. It is a car that does only fully reward a quite skillful driver, who can access the finer points. Just opening the McLaren throttle was a job in itself. I was not surprised to see the work that you have so courageously undertaken in order to finish off the project.
Don’t give me that Gordon didn’t focus quite seriously on the ultimate top speed part of the F1 package. That car is built seriously narrow with most systems breaking new ground in order to cope with the power to weight to make 240 mph. Now describing Bugatti efforts to make workable 400 kph car as providing ‘so little’ else is nonsense. If ‘charisma’ as you define it is ‘specialness’ which in this case of the two hyper cars alludes to the way they feel when you drive, then I would point out that the way the McLaren behaves when you suddenly lift off (the accelerator) at 200 mph does not happen in the Veyron. I know how that made me feel.
Like wise, pottering around winter wet London streets in the Veyron is indeed so very special, but not a home to enjoy your delicious gearbox, deaf brakes, and murderous steering and bollock naked throttle response. Only the F40 came across as more difficult to get out of town. Yes, they were ‘special’ alright.
But you get none of that with the Veyron; so that real people can access a car at home for a '200 mph on the way to Le Mans' moment, as well as well as making a fun visit to the Serpentine Gallery in a dinner jacket, air conned music playing, without breaking into a sweat and not guaranteeing a headache to the passenger. No wonder you leave the McLaren in Germany or wherever.
If the German styling leaves you cold, well that’s personal isn’t it? Porsches were the original ugly (green) frogs, but now they’re an icon, at least to those with automotive engineering sympathies. Maybe the same will happen to the Veyron. It’s what the visuals stand for and that needs to be given time to be appreciated.
I am surprised at your attitude towards the gearbox. If your train set needs to emit steam to be attractive to you, well great. My 2 litre Felday modified Transit was a great tool to learn the Nurburgring in. But it’s not progressing the car very much is it? And I’d further suggest that for a really quick driver to exploit a super quick car as alluded too in my previous post, he won’t need the distraction of having the right cogs engaged, by shifting ruddy pedals and levers, at the right time in the right place and in the right throttle quantity. Have you dropped your semaphore to green yet? (Hey, Trix Twin is my favourite but electric!). The Veyron powertrain is totally amazing and breaks new ground as far as I can see; everything else is a halfway house. Joyless? Do me a favour.
It seems to me that unofficially, half the objective on any of these charismatic supercars is to be the fastest at getting up any particular road (even if it has to remain theoretical 90% of the time). I completely celebrate the fact probably, the Veyron sees of all comers on 99% of circumstances including all these pseudo race cars AND the genuine articles. For me, it gives full credibility to, as I’ve pointed out before, the father of the Porsche 917 and the Audi Quattro, and Piech's vision of how they come together and provide a quantum leap forward. Finally. The final word in quality automotive engineering, top of the food chain. The fastest too.
Finally for me, I celebrate the car; personally, selling them and racing them has been my (fantastic) life (outside the home). And the Veyron, is where it has got to. And that’s just fine; however, I will enjoy them all thank you. Completely IMHO.
I don't see the Veyron as a car in the ilk of CGT, F1, Enzo, when it weighs 1900kgs, so comparisons are pretty pointless.
It's a new type of fast car, in terms of how fast yet accessible it is. Doubt any of the above cars would see which way it went in the real world and then your granny could drive it to the shops. That's the achievement of it and a fairly impressive one.
I'm sure the traditional megacars are still more fun/purer to drive, as they should be. And the F1 will always be seen as the most purely conceived of all (to date at least).
It's a new type of fast car, in terms of how fast yet accessible it is. Doubt any of the above cars would see which way it went in the real world and then your granny could drive it to the shops. That's the achievement of it and a fairly impressive one.
I'm sure the traditional megacars are still more fun/purer to drive, as they should be. And the F1 will always be seen as the most purely conceived of all (to date at least).
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
markbe said:
mr bridger said:
adamt said:
Im pretty sure auto motor und sport tested the veyron at 18.9s to 300kmh...though dont quote me on that
best
a
i"m planning (as we speak) an official verified independant test of both the bug & F1 on the M1 between J50 & 51 on the 1st april 07 at precisely 12:61pm...but best dont tell the B.I.B..... best
a
Thats Scotland isnt it.??
Mark
You mean Feb 29 @ 12:61pm 2007.
..1st APRIL / APRIL THE 1st @ 12:61PM.......soz markbe, couldnt help it after that bristol nonsense you wrote!....Bristol nonsense you say,well how does 650 bhp ton grab you on normal fuel????
Veyron is 540 bhp ton for your comparative purposes,like I said its got character
Mark
.Cd of 2.8 makes it a competitor, eh,whats wrong with the connaught club,
Its ok in a 640 bhp per ton quirky, must try it once, sort of way.
mark
Gassing Station | Porsche General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff