Gordon Murray letter in Evo to Koenigsegg?

[Kirium]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bernoulli

Not always, no. They got it the right way round with the F1 (wind tunnel dictating the shape) but VW couldn't wait to show the world how exciting a company they really were and what their stylists had been working on. If you want to see just how much a car's styling can change once the CFD work has been done, try comparing the Vision SLR with the MM SLR.

I can understand that with cars like the Ford Focus and other "real world" cars, that CFD and wind tunnel work would be an after thought, but I can't imagine that with a car with such a high claimed top speed that aero would have been an afterthought. I'm sure it too has a flat undertray and front and rear diffusers and a speed-sensitive spoiler. Hard to believe that all these things would give the car such a degree of negative downforce (lift?) as to cause it to spin in a straight line.

Originally Posted by Mr. Bernoulli

This I have to disagree on!

I for one can't afford an F1, and in all likelyhood, never will, and i probably speak for all but a few thousand indviduals on the planet. Variety is the spice of life. I think the F1 would be just a fraction less special if everyone on the planet had one... And who's to say that the F1 is the best way to do things? I'll say without hesitation it's the best that's been built to date, and I'm just as much a fan of the F1 as anyone else here (so don't think i'm trying to big-note the Veryon or any other car, or bring down the F1), but I'm sure things can be improved upon. We'd still be living in caves wearing loin cloths if someone hadn't decided to advance common accepted principles on what makes a good weapon... we went from a club to an axe with a cutting edge, evolution. but i'm sure whoever said the club was the be all and end all of weapon design had his fans, but someone decided it could be done differently, and that's not a bad thing. Just because Gordon says cars that don't follow his formula are crap, doesn't mean they are...

Originally Posted by Mr. Bernoulli

for someone to come along and say "Oh it looks like this new car is going to have a higher number in this little box than your car. How does it feel that your car is now a pile of crap..."

I don't think anyone is suggesting that because "X" supercar comes along and posts a higher top speed, that the F1 instantly become scrap carbon fibre. And even when a car does that, I'm sure car enthusiasts won't think the F1 is junk. It doesn't faze me wether a car comes along and does that, because i'll still think the F1 is one of the best cars ever made. Like I said, I'm not trying to praise the Veyron, and I'm not trying to bring down the F1. What I was getting at originally, was that just because GM bags all these supercars because they don't follow his principles and his formula, doesn't mean that he's right, and doesn't mean they're bad cars. He was openly aggressive and attacking these cars (and i'd say he probably hasn't driven them either) just because they don't follow his formula... Which I think is incorrect.

[Kirium]

BTW does anyone have the letter Christian Koenigsegg wrote in response to Gordon's interview sitting around in a magazine somewhere?? I'm dying to read it..

[Cockrocket]

except the SLR looks a lot nicer and not like a pimped out VW beetle..i think the veyron is going to be a complete flunk. Out of 300 that will be built only 50 have been sold and that is not normal for a "amazing" supercar as they tend to be sold before they are made!...i hate the veyron..anoying that it has taken over a mclaren thread!

[John_T]

If you guys didn't know,Michael Schumacher is getting a Veyron. (Yes believe it or not a Veyron). Remember MS had a yellow Bugatti EB110. (he doesn't have it anymore.)

If I'm right, MS has never owned a McLaren F1. Does anyone know his opinion on the F1. (a quote?)

[Cockrocket]

he may get sacked if he bought an oposing teams most famouse road car. lol. Did MS get a enzo. i heard they were all sold and that he cudnt have one but did he manage to get one in the end?

[Kirium]

Cockrocket, I'm curious as to where you've gotten your info on the Veyron, particularly about it spinning in a straight line at speed and the sales figures... For someone who claims to hate it so much, you seem to know a whole lot about it.

[Cockrocket]

is that so wrong to now about it, i buy car magazines and if i see an article about the veyron i will read it. The sales figures were from a "car" magazine, the supercar edition!...it helps to now about a car that your guna slate!

[Peloton25]

Originally Posted by Kirium

Cockrocket, I'm curious as to where you've gotten your info on the Veyron, particularly about it spinning in a straight line at speed and the sales figures... For someone who claims to hate it so much, you seem to know a whole lot about it.

Ahhhh... what's this... A yellow flag and a cloud of dust - there must be trouble!!




Wait, I can see it now...




Why, it's a Veyron...



...spinning off the track at Laguna Seca as it came down the front straight at the Historic Races while on a parade lap.

Kirium - the Veyron has problems, the least of which is the driver in those photographs. Many of those problems have been documented, but seeing as how I have very little respect for the car and am not the least bit interested in it, I don't have any other handy resources to share with you. Suffice to say, they did show the design before they tested the aerodynamics and they have revised the design to include that large rear wing as that's the only way the car will ever stay on the road at speed. It was a stupid mistake on their part. They have also revised the top speed, stating that the car would be capable of the originally quoted 250mph, but only when fitted with special tires and a limiter is removed from the car.

There's more to the stories - as well as cooling problems with the engine as I recall, but again, I would never claim to be an expert on this beast as I simply don't care. I find the car rather laughable and I don't believe it's in the same league as the F1, regardless of its intended market, price, power figure or any other stat one might find similar.

The fact that the original concept was shown all the way back in the year 2000 as the 18/4 Veyron, and has been revised more than 3 times really shows that they don't have their acts together. McLaren began internal discussion about the F1 in mid 1988, had a final concept they showed to the public in early 1992, and had rolled the first real prototype out of the factory at the end of 1992. Less than a year later they were building production cars. In comparison, I find it pretty sad what VW has managed to do with Bugatti so far.

By the way - I was a fan of the EB110 when it was released, although I never felt the styling was very "Bugatti". This new design for the Veyron is even worse IMO.

>8^)
ER

[Kirium]

I'll quickly clarify with you all that i am NOT repeat not pro-Veyron...

I think it's a flawed car in it's concept aswell, and it wouldn't make my top 10 cars to buy if I had the spare change floating around. not by long shot.

I never intended to make this discussion about the Veyron, I don't really care about it either, but Gordon Murray sure does, he brought it up first.. I don't agree with Gordon on the basis that he thinks any and every supercar has to be built by his way of thinking, and if it's not, he immediately discredits and slams it. As i've said many times in this thread, just because it's not the way he'd do it, doesn't warrant such aggressive bagging of cars that have the potential to better the F1 in some areas (and I'm mainly talking about the Koenigsegg CCR here, because it's got far more potential than the Veyron). It seems hugely childish IMHO. Like I said, I'm very interested in the response letter from Christian Koenigsegg. Someone please scan it Glad everyones opinions of the Veyron are their own, and not just taking what Gordon says as gospel...

[Peloton25]

With all due respect, Gordon has every right to bring up the car as it is continuously being compared to the F1 simply based on it's price and the fact that its top speed might eclipse the figure set by the McLaren F1. It may not have been mentioned by that particular interviewer, but it's consistently compared in the press and other mediums just because some of the stats are similar.

If someone intends to make a true competitor to the F1, then they do need to follow his philosphy, and they need to do it better, using the newer technology and design abilities that are available today. As Gordon stated, so far the only car to come really close was the Zonda. The Koenigsegg and others are disqualified because of their forced induction methods of power making. Cars like the Enzo are out because of their lack of civilty and usability as a road car.

The F1 really fits a very small niche of the supercar world when you look at the details.

Also, anyone who chooses is allowed to like the Veyron. Everyone has different things that appeal to them and that's what makes the world better. Liking the Veyron doesn't make someone a bad person, even here in the F1 forum. I only clarified the points that Cockrocket (lol @ that name again) had made that you were questioning because it seemed you didn't believe him.

>8^)
ER

[Cockrocket]

im with you 100% their. Gordon has created a car which despite being 10 years old is still be compared to the most modern hyper cars. I no other car even the F40 has acheived that. If a car is to beat the Maca as the best supercar then it must follow the same rules as it. Strapping 4 turbos to a VW beetle is not the way!

what about the Porsche GT?....i dont particularly like it but i supose it does follow gordons philosophy but it doesnt compare the F1.

[Peloton25]

I guess the Carrera GT is a good fit, but it does lack the luggage space provided by the F1 and Zonda, which give them both a level of usability beyond most other supercars.

In the end, I think being able to let two friends at a time experience how great the F1 really is, will be what truly sets it apart from the rest. I don't foresee anyone else building a car with that configuration anytime soon. Additionally, the center seating position for the driver is continuously praised by nearly everyone who has driven the car. A little hard to get into, but once you are there its apparently perfect.

>8^)
ER

[Kirium]

Originally Posted by Peloton25

The Koenigsegg and others are disqualified because of their forced induction methods of power making.

Disqualified from what?? being a "real" supercar??

So (hypothetically) if the Koenigsegg CCR were to post a higher top speed, a quicker 0-200kph, brake in a shorter distance, corner more effictively, lap a race track quicker and carry a fraction more luggage, it still wouldn't count as being a "real" supercar like the F1 because it uses supercharging?? Come on... It sounds like you're suggesting that the only car that will ever equal or better the F1 as a supercar has to be a modernised clone of the F1.

[Peloton25]

Hey, don't look at me, GM was the one who said you almost can't count them.

In hs defense, I agree that the drawbacks of forced induction do not allow for a pure experience. Forced induction can certainly put a smile on your face, but it's not an ideal way to make additional power when compared to good old fashioned normally aspirated grunt.

It doesn't mean they aren't Supercars - the EB110, 959, F40, 288 GTO, XJ220 and a few others have all used turbocharging, whereas the SLR and Koenigsegg both use a supercharger - and all of those are certainly Supercars.

Tell me though, when was the last time Ferrari or Lamborghini used forced induction on any of their supercars? The F40 and 288 GTO are the two I recall from Ferrari and both are said to be a handful in trying to control when the power kicks in. That's not a pure experience.

>8^)
ER

[Kirium]

Originally Posted by Cockrocket

If a car is to beat the Maca as the best supercar then it must follow the same rules as it.

Can't agree with you there...

Lets take the Ferrari F40, widely considered to be one of the best supercars back in the late 80's and early 90's. Are we forgetting that it was turbocharged? Going by your logic, if a car maker wanted to make a better supercar, it had follow the same rules as the benchmark of the time. Did McLaren do that?? not a bit, they looked outside the box and developed new concepts to create a better supercar, quite a different beast to the F40. So why does a better supercar now have to follow the same mould as the F1? If people had thought that back in the late 80's, the F1 would be just another supercar in the crowd. but it's not. why? because McLaren didn't just replicate the benchmark at the time with a bit of newer technology, they looked for better methods outside the norm.