Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)

[Don1]

Ignore it, like the last time.

[flemke]

Don1 said:

Ignore it, like the last time.

They did not ignore it the last time. Rather, they spent a load of money to build an even faster car.

[h0b0]

flemke said:

I have not driven a Chiron. I have driven several Veyrons. I appreciate that the Chiron is a better driving machine than the Veyron, but I cannot get over its ugliness. The Veyron was no thing of beauty, but at least the design hung together. With that big swooping "C" shape going up the A-pillar, over the door, coming down behind the door and finishing at the front wheel arch, the Chiron was doomed to look silly. And then to highlight it in raw metal!

I’ve never been a fan of the Veyron looks and will agree that it seemed like a one hit wonder. I have said in the past that, just like a Casio is better than an Omega, a Golf is better than a Veyron. The golf can be serviced quickly, cheaply and infrequently so fulfills the design requirement of “car” better.

I had similar feelings about the F1 for a time. They may have been based on poor journalism though. I say similar because the F1 has always been my dream car and I can’t quite understand why the Veyron failed when the F1 succeeded. This thread has gone a long way to educate me and appreciate the F1 more than ever though.

The Chiron I don’t mind. It’s like the girl you grew up with who has blossomed. To me, the Chiron looks less awkward and chunky. I’m now OK with the one hit wonder MO. I’m even OK with the reality that they will spend their lives parked outside hotels in France or being driven by hotel valets.

The sad thing is that the appeal of the Chiron is, by design, limited. It’s not been designed or marketed to endure the Summer let alone generations. It’s as if they purposely left 400kph on the table. I think that’s also why I have issues with Mclaren today.

[SpeckledJim]

h0b0 said:

flemke said:

I have not driven a Chiron. I have driven several Veyrons. I appreciate that the Chiron is a better driving machine than the Veyron, but I cannot get over its ugliness. The Veyron was no thing of beauty, but at least the design hung together. With that big swooping "C" shape going up the A-pillar, over the door, coming down behind the door and finishing at the front wheel arch, the Chiron was doomed to look silly. And then to highlight it in raw metal!

I’ve never been a fan of the Veyron looks and will agree that it seemed like a one hit wonder. I have said in the past that, just like a Casio is better than an Omega, a Golf is better than a Veyron. The golf can be serviced quickly, cheaply and infrequently so fulfills the design requirement of “car” better.

I had similar feelings about the F1 for a time. They may have been based on poor journalism though. I say similar because the F1 has always been my dream car and I can’t quite understand why the Veyron failed when the F1 succeeded. This thread has gone a long way to educate me and appreciate the F1 more than ever though.

The Chiron I don’t mind. It’s like the girl you grew up with who has blossomed. To me, the Chiron looks less awkward and chunky. I’m now OK with the one hit wonder MO. I’m even OK with the reality that they will spend their lives parked outside hotels in France or being driven by hotel valets.

The sad thing is that the appeal of the Chiron is, by design, limited. It’s not been designed or marketed to endure the Summer let alone generations. It’s as if they purposely left 400kph on the table. I think that’s also why I have issues with Mclaren today.

Did the F1 ‘succeed’?

They couldn’t sell-out their own arbitrary limited production run.

Did Veyron ‘fail’? Not sure.

[DanL]

SpeckledJim said:

Did the F1 ‘succeed’?

They couldn’t sell-out their own arbitrary limited production run.

Did Veyron ‘fail’? Not sure.

Glad I’m not the only one that thought this! Different economic environments, but as the time the F1 was probably a failure in commercial terms. The Veyron? Well, they seem to have sold a lot of them...

[h0b0]

DanL said:

SpeckledJim said:

Did the F1 ‘succeed’?

They couldn’t sell-out their own arbitrary limited production run.

Did Veyron ‘fail’? Not sure.

Glad I’m not the only one that thought this! Different economic environments, but as the time the F1 was probably a failure in commercial terms. The Veyron? Well, they seem to have sold a lot of them...

“Succeed” was meant to me personally and my own perception.

[t563sk1]

Imagine footing the bill for this......

https://gtspirit.com/2019/09/02/iconic-mclaren-f1-...

[epom]

t563sk1 said:

Imagine footing the bill for this......

https://gtspirit.com/2019/09/02/iconic-mclaren-f1-...

Check out allwayswong_official on insta. A man with tastes similar to my own

[flemke]

h0b0 said:

The sad thing is that the appeal of the Chiron is, by design, limited. It’s not been designed or marketed to endure the Summer let alone generations. It’s as if they purposely left 400kph on the table. I think that’s also why I have issues with Mclaren today.

Could you please expand on leaving 400kph on the table and what you mean by issues with McLaren today?

[flemke]

SpeckledJim said:

h0b0 said:

flemke said:

I have not driven a Chiron. I have driven several Veyrons. I appreciate that the Chiron is a better driving machine than the Veyron, but I cannot get over its ugliness. The Veyron was no thing of beauty, but at least the design hung together. With that big swooping "C" shape going up the A-pillar, over the door, coming down behind the door and finishing at the front wheel arch, the Chiron was doomed to look silly. And then to highlight it in raw metal!

I’ve never been a fan of the Veyron looks and will agree that it seemed like a one hit wonder. I have said in the past that, just like a Casio is better than an Omega, a Golf is better than a Veyron. The golf can be serviced quickly, cheaply and infrequently so fulfills the design requirement of “car” better.

I had similar feelings about the F1 for a time. They may have been based on poor journalism though. I say similar because the F1 has always been my dream car and I can’t quite understand why the Veyron failed when the F1 succeeded. This thread has gone a long way to educate me and appreciate the F1 more than ever though.

The Chiron I don’t mind. It’s like the girl you grew up with who has blossomed. To me, the Chiron looks less awkward and chunky. I’m now OK with the one hit wonder MO. I’m even OK with the reality that they will spend their lives parked outside hotels in France or being driven by hotel valets.

The sad thing is that the appeal of the Chiron is, by design, limited. It’s not been designed or marketed to endure the Summer let alone generations. It’s as if they purposely left 400kph on the table. I think that’s also why I have issues with Mclaren today.

Did the F1 ‘succeed’?

They couldn’t sell-out their own arbitrary limited production run.

Did Veyron ‘fail’? Not sure.

Multiple ways of measuring success. Many a commercial failure has in the fullness of time proved to be technically, artistically or socially brilliant.

[flemke]

DanL said:

SpeckledJim said:

Did the F1 ‘succeed’?

They couldn’t sell-out their own arbitrary limited production run.

Did Veyron ‘fail’? Not sure.

Glad I’m not the only one that thought this! Different economic environments, but as the time the F1 was probably a failure in commercial terms. The Veyron? Well, they seem to have sold a lot of them...

Even with all the Veyron variants, VAG lost money (at least in the way that could be objectively measured) on the project. The Chiron is a reheated Veyron at twice the price. As the head of Bugatti said to a friend of mine who has owned several Veyrons/Chirons, "What we lost on the Veyron we will more than get back in profit on the Chiron".

[flemke]

t563sk1 said:

Imagine footing the bill for this......

https://gtspirit.com/2019/09/02/iconic-mclaren-f1-...

The cost of refurbishing that one was a small fraction of the cost of rebuilding this one:

[Antony Moxey]

flemke said:

DanL said:

SpeckledJim said:

Did the F1 ‘succeed’?

They couldn’t sell-out their own arbitrary limited production run.

Did Veyron ‘fail’? Not sure.

Glad I’m not the only one that thought this! Different economic environments, but as the time the F1 was probably a failure in commercial terms. The Veyron? Well, they seem to have sold a lot of them...

Even with all the Veyron variants, VAG lost money (at least in the way that could be objectively measured) on the project. The Chiron is a reheated Veyron at twice the price. As the head of Bugatti said to a friend of mine who has owned several Veyrons/Chirons, "What we lost on the Veyron we will more than get back in profit on the Chiron".

Why would you own several of the same car? Do people get bored, sell, then wish the hadn’t so get another then rinse and repeat?

[Dave Hedgehog]

flemke said:

t563sk1 said:

Imagine footing the bill for this......

https://gtspirit.com/2019/09/02/iconic-mclaren-f1-...

The cost of refurbishing that one was a small fraction of the cost of rebuilding this one:

fortunately they are worth so much the cost of rebuilding them id far cheaper than writing them off

[flemke]

Antony Moxey said:

flemke said:

DanL said:

SpeckledJim said:

Did the F1 ‘succeed’?

They couldn’t sell-out their own arbitrary limited production run.

Did Veyron ‘fail’? Not sure.

Glad I’m not the only one that thought this! Different economic environments, but as the time the F1 was probably a failure in commercial terms. The Veyron? Well, they seem to have sold a lot of them...

Even with all the Veyron variants, VAG lost money (at least in the way that could be objectively measured) on the project. The Chiron is a reheated Veyron at twice the price. As the head of Bugatti said to a friend of mine who has owned several Veyrons/Chirons, "What we lost on the Veyron we will more than get back in profit on the Chiron".

Why would you own several of the same car? Do people get bored, sell, then wish the hadn’t so get another then rinse and repeat?

Standard car, Pur Sang, Supersport....

[Antony Moxey]

Ah, cheers. For some reason I completely forgot about the variants. Doh.

[h0b0]

flemke said:

h0b0 said:

The sad thing is that the appeal of the Chiron is, by design, limited. It’s not been designed or marketed to endure the Summer let alone generations. It’s as if they purposely left 400kph on the table. I think that’s also why I have issues with Mclaren today.

Could you please expand on leaving 400kph on the table and what you mean by issues with McLaren today?

I meant 500kph (I should have my own fact checking bot). It was slightly tongue in cheek comment that there’s another “magic” number left on the table for someone to beat.

My issue with Mclaren is similar to Porsche and Ferrari. There was an over hyped battle to be beat each other on the ring with their new generation of hyper cars. It was meant to demonstrate mind boggling technology. Unfortunately, they never released their numbers because a whole host of normal prehistoric tech cars could beat them. It seemed they had all fallen short of their goal and made the cars irrelevant.

[em177]

Had a good look around chassis 63 this morning at Hampton Court. Very lovely thing, the colour combo looked very elegant in the Sunday morning sun.



(Excuse the terrible pic, there’s plenty of high res ones around elsewhere to drool over)

[flemke]

h0b0 said:

flemke said:

h0b0 said:

The sad thing is that the appeal of the Chiron is, by design, limited. It’s not been designed or marketed to endure the Summer let alone generations. It’s as if they purposely left 400kph on the table. I think that’s also why I have issues with Mclaren today.

Could you please expand on leaving 400kph on the table and what you mean by issues with McLaren today?

I meant 500kph (I should have my own fact checking bot). It was slightly tongue in cheek comment that there’s another “magic” number left on the table for someone to beat.

My issue with Mclaren is similar to Porsche and Ferrari. There was an over hyped battle to be beat each other on the ring with their new generation of hyper cars. It was meant to demonstrate mind boggling technology. Unfortunately, they never released their numbers because a whole host of normal prehistoric tech cars could beat them. It seemed they had all fallen short of their goal and made the cars irrelevant.

Yes, overhyped by McLaren and Porsche. Ferrari did not say anything about the 'Ring because they don't allow their factory cars to set times anywhere except on their own circuit, where of course no other manufacturers are allowed to set times. Unfortunately it appears that the market for almost all expensive sports cars favours Vmax, lap-time, fast-shifting paddles and extreme looks over real-world driver involvement and aesthetics. For me, the now-ancient NSX is more involving and fun to drive on public roads than the modern cars are.

[flemke]

Antony Moxey said:

Ah, cheers. For some reason I completely forgot about the variants. Doh.

Makes sense - many of them were quite forgettable.