RE: Pagani Zonda F
Discussion
suryade said:
Whoa Lamborghini Murcielago 640.....as in 640 hp?! What about reduced weight cause despite all that car's talents it is a biiiiiiig heavy car!
Reportedly they made liberal use of carbon for the body. That should shave off some kilos, but with 4wd it'll still be heavier than a Zonda.
yeah I'm all for driving balls out down residential streets - real life Death Race 2000 
>> Edited by woof on Sunday 26th February 18:42
flemke said:
Beautiful sounds.
Tearing along the street in a built-up area at twilight isn't terribly clever.woof said:
OK - what's going on with Pistonheads lately
There's been various posts from lots of different members - that basically have to put comments into threads - saying things like - oh that's not very clever, or that chap really should be wearing seatbelts, or he should have more consideration for other road users etc etc etc
who care's - this isn't bicyleheads or lameheads !
I presume that you were referring to my post.
For the avoidance of doubt, woof, are you saying that tearing along the street in a built-up area at twilight is terribly clever?
>> Edited by woof on Sunday 26th February 18:42
Lotus/beemer/maz said:
Would any of you ever actuall want 1 though? Just think off the cost of 1 years motoring!
if i could afford one, the cost of a years motoring really isn't going to trouble me.
you wouldn't buy a Zonda and be considering the running costs "hmm, i've just spent £400k on a car - i wonder if i can afford the insurance" or "it only does 8mpg - OMG how will i afford this?".
tinman0 said:tinman,
you wouldn't buy a Zonda and be considering the running costs "hmm, i've just spent £400k on a car - i wonder if i can afford the insurance" or "it only does 8mpg - OMG how will i afford this?".
You might be surprised. It may not be matter of whether Mr X can afford to pay for it, but rather whether it seems worth what it would cost.
If the price is £400M, the opportunity cost on that money is going to be at least 5% pa, so that's 20 grand off the top.
The insurance in a lot of the UK, if that's what we're talking about, will be another 8 at least. Routine maintenance would probably - I'm guessing - be another 5 if you're going to drive it much, consume tyres and brakes, etc.
Then you've got to keep it somewhere secure, one expects. The cost of that will vary, but call it another 3. We're now at 36.
Depreciation? Yes, it could become a classic, but the track record on almost all similar things is that they go down, at least before they start to go up.
This is purely a guess, but I reckon that if you were to sell a two-year-old "F" with 8,000 miles on it you would get, at best, 85% of what you paid. That's if you found the one buyer in the world who had to have your car, rather than having one made for himself that was brand-new and exactly to his spec. More likely you should expect 75%, but let's go with 85. That's still a loss of 30/year. That amount of absolute loss obviously cannot continue forever, but in the first few years it smarts.
Thus the expected annual cost of running the car is north of 60 grand, or £8.50/mile with fuel. I don't know if that sounds like much, but if you told me that just the driving expense of taking a Zonda from, say, the Midlands to Le Mans and back was knocking on 10 grand, it would feel like a lot.
Factor in how hard it is to use such a car properly in camera-happy Britain, and increasingly hard in France, and there may be other things that compete with the F in value-for-money.
Also, the market for these cars is sufficiently narrow that a lot of the folks who would potentially have one have already had not dissimilar driving experiences in other uber-wagons. That tends to take the edge off one's enthusiasm, unfortunately.
This is a wonderful car. I am not trying to dismiss it, or the thrill that it would give to ANY petrolhead. I'm just trying to offer a bit of perspective.
Then again, I can't understand why anyone would pay more than a couple of hundred quid for a yacht or a plane. Scrap value, I suppose.
flemke said:
you wouldn't buy a Zonda and be considering the running costs "hmm, i've just spent £400k on a car - i wonder if i can afford the insurance" or "it only does 8mpg - OMG how will i afford this?".
You might be surprised. It may not be matter of whether Mr X can afford to pay for it, but rather whether it seems worth what it would cost.
If the price is £400M, the opportunity cost on that money is going to be at least 5% pa, so that's 20 grand off the top.
The insurance in a lot of the UK, if that's what we're talking about, will be another 8 at least. Routine maintenance would probably - I'm guessing - be another 5 if you're going to drive it much, consume tyres and brakes, etc.
Then you've got to keep it somewhere secure, one expects. The cost of that will vary, but call it another 3. We're now at 36.
Depreciation? Yes, it could become a classic, but the track record on almost all similar things is that they go down, at least before they start to go up.
This is purely a guess, but I reckon that if you were to sell a two-year-old "F" with 8,000 miles on it you would get, at best, 85% of what you paid. That's if you found the one buyer in the world who had to have your car, rather than having one made for himself that was brand-new and exactly to his spec. More likely you should expect 75%, but let's go with 85. That's still a loss of 30/year. That amount of absolute loss obviously cannot continue forever, but in the first few years it smarts.
Thus the expected annual cost of running the car is north of 60 grand, or £8.50/mile with fuel. I don't know if that sounds like much, but if you told me that just the driving expense of taking a Zonda from, say, the Midlands to Le Mans and back was knocking on 10 grand, it would feel like a lot.
Factor in how hard it is to use such a car properly in camera-happy Britain, and increasingly hard in France, and there may be other things that compete with the F in value-for-money.
Also, the market for these cars is sufficiently narrow that a lot of the folks who would potentially have one have already had not dissimilar driving experiences in other uber-wagons. That tends to take the edge off one's enthusiasm, unfortunately.
This is a wonderful car. I am not trying to dismiss it, or the thrill that it would give to ANY petrolhead. I'm just trying to offer a bit of perspective.
Then again, I can't understand why anyone would pay more than a couple of hundred quid for a yacht or a plane. Scrap value, I suppose.
pah, your just trying to stop me buying one, oh and add to that the funds required
tinman0 said:tinman (and rich),
I stand corrected
As I say, I'm not trying to put down the car or its brethren. They are fantastic.
It is really tempting to think, "If I had the dough, I'd definitely get one, and if I did get one then by definition I wouldn't have to think about running costs."
With these things (and I suppose with all cars, each in its own way), however, if after you're done with it (which almost always does happen) you add up what the car really cost you, it can be a number that's both enlightening and embarrassing.
Oh well!
flemke,
The running cost and depreciation of a Zonda F seems relative small compare to a Sunseeker yacht, which could drink over 2000L for single fill up. The cost of insurance, maintenance, ant foul¡K.etc on a large size boat make operation cost on Zonda seems remnants for real riches.
According to local Senseeker sales rep, they sell over 70 yachts alone just in Sydney harbor in last 5 years. I doubt for any one can spend 400k on a car (not a house), 40k operation cost means much to them.
The running cost and depreciation of a Zonda F seems relative small compare to a Sunseeker yacht, which could drink over 2000L for single fill up. The cost of insurance, maintenance, ant foul¡K.etc on a large size boat make operation cost on Zonda seems remnants for real riches.
According to local Senseeker sales rep, they sell over 70 yachts alone just in Sydney harbor in last 5 years. I doubt for any one can spend 400k on a car (not a house), 40k operation cost means much to them.
beearwa said:Well...
flemke,
The running cost and depreciation of a Zonda F seems relative small compare to a Sunseeker yacht, which could drink over 2000L for single fill up. The cost of insurance, maintenance, ant foul¡K.etc on a large size boat make operation cost on Zonda seems remnants for real riches.
According to local Senseeker sales rep, they sell over 70 yachts alone just in Sydney harbor in last 5 years. I doubt for any one can spend 400k on a car (not a house), 40k operation cost means much to them.
Let's assume that you live in the UK and that your income is at the national average, which is maybe £20K(?). Something in that area.
Suppose one day you are really hankering for a chocolate bar and you go into the village sweetshop. You say to your friend the shopkeeper that you are dying for a sweet and then you select a luscious-looking "Fruit and Nut". The shopkeeper then says, "That'll be twenty quid, beearwa."
You're going to throw the candy back at him and walk out.
You could afford to pay £20: your bank balance wouldn't notice whether it was £20 richer or poorer. But it would seem like such an extravagance that you wouldn't buy it out of principle.
As I said above, I don't see the point of paying more than £200 for a yacht. However, I suppose that the bigger Sunseekers have more scrap value than most smaller craft.
>> Edited by flemke on Monday 27th February 23:28
flemke said:
you wouldn't buy a Zonda and be considering the running costs "hmm, i've just spent £400k on a car - i wonder if i can afford the insurance" or "it only does 8mpg - OMG how will i afford this?".
You might be surprised. It may not be matter of whether Mr X can afford to pay for it, but rather whether it seems worth what it would cost.
If the price is £400M, the opportunity cost on that money is going to be at least 5% pa, so that's 20 grand off the top.
The insurance in a lot of the UK, if that's what we're talking about, will be another 8 at least. Routine maintenance would probably - I'm guessing - be another 5 if you're going to drive it much, consume tyres and brakes, etc.
Then you've got to keep it somewhere secure, one expects. The cost of that will vary, but call it another 3. We're now at 36.
Depreciation? Yes, it could become a classic, but the track record on almost all similar things is that they go down, at least before they start to go up.
This is purely a guess, but I reckon that if you were to sell a two-year-old "F" with 8,000 miles on it you would get, at best, 85% of what you paid. That's if you found the one buyer in the world who had to have your car, rather than having one made for himself that was brand-new and exactly to his spec. More likely you should expect 75%, but let's go with 85. That's still a loss of 30/year. That amount of absolute loss obviously cannot continue forever, but in the first few years it smarts.
Thus the expected annual cost of running the car is north of 60 grand, or £8.50/mile with fuel. I don't know if that sounds like much, but if you told me that just the driving expense of taking a Zonda from, say, the Midlands to Le Mans and back was knocking on 10 grand, it would feel like a lot.
Factor in how hard it is to use such a car properly in camera-happy Britain, and increasingly hard in France, and there may be other things that compete with the F in value-for-money.
Also, the market for these cars is sufficiently narrow that a lot of the folks who would potentially have one have already had not dissimilar driving experiences in other uber-wagons. That tends to take the edge off one's enthusiasm, unfortunately.
This is a wonderful car. I am not trying to dismiss it, or the thrill that it would give to ANY petrolhead. I'm just trying to offer a bit of perspective.
Then again, I can't understand why anyone would pay more than a couple of hundred quid for a yacht or a plane. Scrap value, I suppose.
very wise and accurate words. i only ever made money on 1 car i sold
flemke said:
This is purely a guess, but I reckon that if you were to sell a two-year-old "F" with 8,000 miles on it you would get, at best, 85% of what you paid. That's if you found the one buyer in the world who had to have your car, rather than having one made for himself that was brand-new and exactly to his spec. More likely you should expect 75%, but let's go with 85. That's still a loss of 30/year. That amount of absolute loss obviously cannot continue forever, but in the first few years it smarts.
Thus the expected annual cost of running the car is north of 60 grand, or £8.50/mile with fuel. I don't know if that sounds like much, but if you told me that just the driving expense of taking a Zonda from, say, the Midlands to Le Mans and back was knocking on 10 grand, it would feel like a lot.
I've just noticed my own stupidity:
In the above hypothetical calculation, I divided the 60+ grand per year costs by the mileage to get a cost per mile. Unthinkingly, I divided by the two-year mileage.
If I had divided correctly, by the annual mileage, the cost-per-mile would have been £17, and that trip to Le Mans would have cost 20 thou.
As most people seem to drive such cars a maximum of 4-5,000/year, the hypothetical numbers are probably not unrealistic for the typical owner.
flemke said:
This is purely a guess, but I reckon that if you were to sell a two-year-old "F" with 8,000 miles on it you would get, at best, 85% of what you paid. That's if you found the one buyer in the world who had to have your car, rather than having one made for himself that was brand-new and exactly to his spec. More likely you should expect 75%, but let's go with 85. That's still a loss of 30/year. That amount of absolute loss obviously cannot continue forever, but in the first few years it smarts.
Thus the expected annual cost of running the car is north of 60 grand, or £8.50/mile with fuel. I don't know if that sounds like much, but if you told me that just the driving expense of taking a Zonda from, say, the Midlands to Le Mans and back was knocking on 10 grand, it would feel like a lot.
I've just noticed my own stupidity:
In the above hypothetical calculation, I divided the 60+ grand per year costs by the mileage to get a cost per mile. Unthinkingly, I divided by the two-year mileage.
If I had divided correctly, by the annual mileage, the cost-per-mile would have been £17, and that trip to Le Mans would have cost 20 thou.
As most people seem to drive such cars a maximum of 4-5,000/year, the hypothetical numbers are probably not unrealistic for the typical owner.
ok id have to live in it, still cant see any downside
flemke said:
ok id have to live in it, still cant see any downside
I've only seen its equivalent in the last few years' McLaren Formula One cars.
I know you dont like the spykers either, but if they didnt exist, it would be a shame that the creative and engineering lunacy didnt get expressed.
Its brilliant that these things get built at all.
rich1231 said:Ah, the Spyker. That's a different story.
I know you dont like the spykers either, but if they didnt exist, it would be a shame that the creative and engineering lunacy didnt get expressed.
Its brilliant that these things get built at all.
I've no objection to the aesthetic choices that were made for the Spyker. I just think that, rather than being applied to an automobile, they should have been applied to a circus wagon.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff