RE: Aston Martin Valkyrie design secrets revealed

[anonymous-user]

NRS said:

From what I can see fblm was suggesting a way it could work - we have to wait and see what is done in practice. That said, it's a complete failure already....

Complete speculation on my part; just can't get my head round the absurd negativity. I'll reserve judgement till I've been in one but I suspect it's going to be extraordinary; I'm pretty sure both the guys I know getting one will drive and track them. I'm going to have to start accumulating blackmail material for a drive

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 16th July 19:21

[anonymous-user]

Troubleatmill said:

It's a business.
AM make jack st profit on the cars they make.
If making 150 of these bolsters the coffers somewhat - good on them.

If you ever do a factory tour - you will see that they only have 1 robot, and all the parts bins etc are labelled Volvo and Ford.

If they made £1m on each one (they won't, I don't expect), they wouldn't be making a massive boost to the coffers.

It's to help shift metal lower down the order, that IS produced in volume and will make money.

[Megaflow]

Andy Palmer has already said the project won't make huge amounts of money. It just about washes its face, were his exact words.

[NRS]

fblm said:

NRS said:

From what I can see fblm was suggesting a way it could work - we have to wait and see what is done in practice. That said, it's a complete failure already....

Complete speculation on my part; just can't get my head round the absurd negativity. I'll reserve judgement till I've been in one but I suspect it's going to be extraordinary; I'm pretty sure both the guys I know getting one will drive and track them. I'm going to have to start accumulating blackmail material for a drive

Edited by fblm on Sunday 16th July 19:21

I understand, it was just one thing that could be considered to help it have both comfort and performance.

I have no idea either - I suspect a lot of those complaining about it not being what is effectively practical enough for an everyday car would also be complaining about Aston making a 4x4 as it's not very "AM"... I also wonder what kind of engineers a few people who have been posting are. They certainly don't seem to appreciate innovation or seeing how experts in the different areas are going to come up with answers to the different challenges. Seems to be a case of "do what you have done before and design a car that I would like".

[anonymous-user]

NRS said:

fblm said:

NRS said:

From what I can see fblm was suggesting a way it could work - we have to wait and see what is done in practice. That said, it's a complete failure already....

Complete speculation on my part; just can't get my head round the absurd negativity. I'll reserve judgement till I've been in one but I suspect it's going to be extraordinary; I'm pretty sure both the guys I know getting one will drive and track them. I'm going to have to start accumulating blackmail material for a drive

Edited by fblm on Sunday 16th July 19:21

I understand, it was just one thing that could be considered to help it have both comfort and performance.

I have no idea either - I suspect a lot of those complaining about it not being what is effectively practical enough for an everyday car would also be complaining about Aston making a 4x4 as it's not very "AM"... I also wonder what kind of engineers a few people who have been posting are. They certainly don't seem to appreciate innovation or seeing how experts in the different areas are going to come up with answers to the different challenges. Seems to be a case of "do what you have done before and design a car that I would like".

The only issue i have is the use of the words 'Road Car'.

I think it's pretty dam likely this car will be the fastest "road legal" car around a circuit. You'd hope as much given the team engineering it and the spec. But, IMO, what it isn't is a 'road car' and i put those words in quotes for good reason. Now Mr A Newey is an amazing race engineer, but he's not a road car engineer. Ask him what the Type Approval requirements for say, Front end parking lights, windscreen max demist times, pedestrian impact zones, Kerb strike, Drive by noise or a host of other important 'road car' details and you'll get a blank look.

As a member of the team who developed the P1 i know that it those and many more subtle but critical details that make a true 'road car'.

Go watch this:

Chris Harris on Cars - Living with the McLaren P1

There were a lot of compromises made on the P1 to allow owners to really user their cars on the road. And in almost every case, those compromises reduced the ultimate performance of the car, but as the P1 is a 'road car' first and foremost, they were embraced despite the loss of performance commensurate with their adoption.


I simply don't think that this new car could be used o the road in the same way, it is looking to be highly compromised towards track performance. Now there is nothing wrong with that in its self of course, but i'd argue that this makes this new car a 'road legal' track car first, and a 'road car' second. Semantics, you might cry, and you'd have a point, but sometimes, Semantics matter

[NRS]

The thing is you are approaching it with your view of what a road car is. Most of my friends aren't interested in cars in the slightly, and so the P1 to them is a completely stupid car, and not really going to match what they want in a car. To them a P1 would be far too compromised to be a proper road car. Are they right, or are you right? In the same way this looks to be even more compromised - so you say it is wrong, yet it seems at least 150 owners are interested in it. The only difference between you saying this is stupid and friends saying the P1 is stupid is just what you're used to/ what you want in a car. So I don't understand why you have said it's going to be a poor car and you might as well get an F1 - surely you of any people should say it's a matter of choice for the customers. It is clear some will go into collections, but some will be driven. The P1 is the same. So again I don't understand the comments.

And in regards to Newey then yes, he won't know a lot about the making a legal car for the road - hence why they have involved Aston and other experts. I guess the F1 is a failure then since it was designed by someone from F1 too?

[anonymous-user]

Where did i say this car is going to be poor? It'll be massively fast (almost certainly too fast for an average driver), look amazing, and no doubt, be terrific for posing. What it won't be is nice to drive.......

[NRS]

Max_Torque said:

Where did i say this car is going to be poor? It'll be massively fast (almost certainly too fast for an average driver), look amazing, and no doubt, be terrific for posing. What it won't be is nice to drive.......

You said it would be a poor road car. Yet you haven't explained the difference between your view and one of my friends (or the view of many of the public) on the P1 versus this. You're just applying what you want/expect onto everyone else.

Also when they announced the P1 I thought it was obviously going to be rubbish, despite not having driven it. Do you think that's an ok judgement to have made? In addition I still do - only 2 seats, low to the ground so could be damaged in a pothole, designed to be able to get a good time on track... it's clearly massively compromised as a road car.

[humblesabot]

R400TVR said:

No-one's mentioned that it looks impossible to get into, even worse to get out of, and, from the pics, it looks that you can't see anything other than directly ahead. No peripheral vision required?

Plenty of people have. They must all be 80 and have bad backs.

[anonymous-user]

Max_Torque said:

...IMO, what it isn't is a 'road car' and i put those words in quotes for good reason. Now Mr A Newey is an amazing race engineer, but he's not a road car engineer. Ask him what the Type Approval requirements for say, Front end parking lights, windscreen max demist times, pedestrian impact zones, Kerb strike, Drive by noise or a host of other important 'road car' details...

Surely what is or isn't a 'road' car, besides legality, is a huge grey scale determined by how masochistic the owners are. By the dreary criteria you list a Caterham isn't a road car either, yet somehow I managed with one as an only car for 4 years. I suspect in this instance road car means you can legally pop to Goodwood or Silverstone for an exclusive trackday without wearing an intercom for a change. You pays your money you takes your choice.

[anonymous-user]

fblm said:

Surely what is or isn't a 'road' car, besides legality, is a huge grey scale determined by how masochistic the owners are.

Precisely my point.

Most people would describe a Caterham (and it's ilk) as "road legal track cars" for very good reason.

[DonkeyApple]

To be fair, most people rent uniform, diesel crap boxes in various shades of grey. Should we really be valuing their views on actual interesting cars on a forum that really is about celebrating the inane, impractical or just different?

The further away from a grey 120D (like the one presently on my drive), in either direction, shed or supercar, the superior it is.

[Megaflow]

Max_Torque said:

fblm said:

Surely what is or isn't a 'road' car, besides legality, is a huge grey scale determined by how masochistic the owners are.

Precisely my point.

Most people would describe a Caterham (and it's ilk) as "road legal track cars" for very good reason.

Indeed. What impressive most about cars like the P1, 918, La Ferrari and even more so, the Veyron and Chiron, is there ability to blend massive performance and road usability. McLaren say the P1 is a road car and has to be able to sit in a traffic jam in a city in 40 degree heat. Otherwise it can't claim to be. I very much doubt this thing will be able to do the same thing.

I am sure it will be fabulous, on track, can we just stop calling it a road car, because it isn't.

[DanielSan]

Megaflow said:

Andy Palmer has already said the project won't make huge amounts of money. It just about washes its face, were his exact words.

A good chunk of its funding is coming from Red Bull isn't it? I may well be wrong/read or misunderstood wrong/dreamt it, they wanted to allow Newey the chance to design a road car in order to keep his services away from that red team in the paddock but also needed a manufacturer to work with to fulfil the project.

[DanielSan]

Megaflow said:

Indeed. What impressive most about cars like the P1, 918, La Ferrari and even more so, the Veyron and Chiron, is there ability to blend massive performance and road usability. McLaren say the P1 is a road car and has to be able to sit in a traffic jam in a city in 40 degree heat. Otherwise it can't claim to be. I very much doubt this thing will be able to do the same thing.

I am sure it will be fabulous, on track, can we just stop calling it a road car, because it isn't.

If it's got lights, MOT, tax and number plates it's a road car. An old F1 car could be bought for the same money but the Aston will be started with a button and can be driven to the shops, an F1 car takes a team of 20 blokes and a transporter so it's impossible to take to the shops.

[NRS]

Megaflow said:

Max_Torque said:

fblm said:

Surely what is or isn't a 'road' car, besides legality, is a huge grey scale determined by how masochistic the owners are.

Precisely my point.

Most people would describe a Caterham (and it's ilk) as "road legal track cars" for very good reason.

Indeed. What impressive most about cars like the P1, 918, La Ferrari and even more so, the Veyron and Chiron, is there ability to blend massive performance and road usability. McLaren say the P1 is a road car and has to be able to sit in a traffic jam in a city in 40 degree heat. Otherwise it can't claim to be. I very much doubt this thing will be able to do the same thing.

I am sure it will be fabulous, on track, can we just stop calling it a road car, because it isn't.

A P1 cannot sit 3 people and will get damaged by potholes due to it being too low. Many non-car friends say it is not a road car in the sense you are saying the Valkyrie is not one. Is that correct, and if not why not? Their opinion is equally valid as either of yours surely? "Even" a 488 or a 570 can require careful route planning in terms of avoiding traffic calming measures, speed bumps, narrow roads and road surface quality.

[br d]

NRS said:

"Even" a 488 or a 570 can require careful route planning in terms of avoiding traffic calming measures, speed bumps, narrow roads and road surface quality.

Really? I've had low cars like this and never done any "careful route planning". I just go out for a drive and if I come across speed bumps I lift the car or slow down. Can't think of anywhere a road has become so narrow I can't traverse it and surface quality has never got so bad that it does any damage. Clearly I don't just turn into a ploughed field and hope for the best but other than that you're over-egging it.

If I had a Valkyrie I would drive it absolutely everywhere, Tescos, school run, pub. You'd be making peoples day every time you drove it. Mental looking thing.

[NRS]

br d said:

NRS said:

"Even" a 488 or a 570 can require careful route planning in terms of avoiding traffic calming measures, speed bumps, narrow roads and road surface quality.

Really? I've had low cars like this and never done any "careful route planning". I just go out for a drive and if I come across speed bumps I lift the car or slow down. Can't think of anywhere a road has become so narrow I can't traverse it and surface quality has never got so bad that it does any damage. Clearly I don't just turn into a ploughed field and hope for the best but other than that you're over-egging it.

If I had a Valkyrie I would drive it absolutely everywhere, Tescos, school run, pub. You'd be making peoples day every time you drove it. Mental looking thing.

I agree generally they are fine, that's why I said can rather than normally or a similar word (just explaining, not meaning it in a bad way). I know some people have had problems with width restrictions (one of the bridges in London from memory is an issue), and I guess you're generally using decent to ok roads for driving as you wouldn't bother driving on poor roads since it wouldn't be much fun. They are obviously road cars, just making the point as DA said there is lots of shades of grey, yet some posters seem to think their view is the correct one - rather than what is legal as owners will have different levels of what they find acceptable.

[anonymous-user]

Max_Torque said:

fblm said:

Surely what is or isn't a 'road' car, besides legality, is a huge grey scale determined by how masochistic the owners are.

Precisely my point.

Most people would describe a Caterham (and it's ilk) as "road legal track cars" for very good reason.

Most people are idiots but we digress They also say the P1/918/LaF are race cars for billionaires to drive round Harrods in. As an aside and IMO a Caterham is far more at home on the average British B road than any 2m wide, carbon bottomed hypercar. I wonder what is the 'best road car'? Turbo S? RS4 Avant? One for another thread...

[Maldini35]

NRS said:

Max_Torque said:

Where did i say this car is going to be poor? It'll be massively fast (almost certainly too fast for an average driver), look amazing, and no doubt, be terrific for posing. What it won't be is nice to drive.......

You said it would be a poor road car. Yet you haven't explained the difference between your view and one of my friends (or the view of many of the public) on the P1 versus this. You're just applying what you want/expect onto everyone else.

Also when they announced the P1 I thought it was obviously going to be rubbish, despite not having driven it. Do you think that's an ok judgement to have made? In addition I still do - only 2 seats, low to the ground so could be damaged in a pothole, designed to be able to get a good time on track... it's clearly massively compromised as a road car.

I take it you still haven't driven a P1.
Some owners actually commute in it. It really isn't that compromised considering the performance on offer.

The Valkyrie?
As a track-only wonder - I like it but can't help but feel it's an irrelevance.
It's the same with the FXXK or the Vulcan. Anybody can make a fast car freed from race regs or road legal requirements. I just don't find it that impressive. It's a personal point of view and I'm sure many will disagree.

But the Valkyrie as a road car... I'm baffled. I just don't see how it can work. At best it may technically qualify as road legal in one or two countries like the Camparo thingy.

However, I should reserve judgment and will wait and see what the road version is like.
Maybe it'll be radically different.

But from what we've seen so far I doubt they'll be anybody commuting in it.

(I too ran a Caterham as my daily driver for a couple of years - it was definitely a road car that could race rather than vice versa and nothing like the Valkyrie)