All that work and nobody cares or noticed...

So what? 4WD, 4 turbos, 2 spoilers, and special tyres. Waste of money imo

http://www.classicdriver.com/uk/magazine/3300.asp?id=12456

And how fast did the Koenigsegg CCR go?

It would be funny if McLaren made a few tweaks "or upgrades" and soundly beat them all again!

And how fast did the Koenigsegg CCR go?

Like 1 mph faster :rolleyes:

It would be funny if McLaren made a few tweaks "or upgrades" and soundly beat them all again!

I'm sure they could. Many people still think of it as the greatest car ever made. Regardless of top speed (which is a pathetic attribute for a company to boast about. Where are you going to get up to 248mph? Nowhere

This is kind of old news. That website is just slow.

You have to admire VW/Bugatti's tenacity. Everybody knew that Bugatti were way in over their heads when the problems started to arise and then delay after delay of production. Bugatti really needed this after boasting so much about their ambition. They were becoming a laughing stock for thinking that their mission was that easy to accomplish and to release anything less would only cement that image which would hurt their future as an exotic car manufacturer.

Yeah, it is impressive--you have to give credit where it's due. It certainly puts it in the ultracar league. I stil feel that the McLaren F1 is a far better overall package. In terms of design, the McLaren was never "gorgeous" (except with the HDF and in that sexy LM orange) but it was pleasing to the eye from most angles. I think the Bugatti is a bit too bulbous looking, and there's nothing unique or eyecatching about its basic sport coupe shape. I think the AM V8 is far better looking, for just one example.

Mini magic, it's just one aspect of performance, but there's a lot that needs to go right in order to sustain those speeds, so it is an impressive achievement. And there are a lot of public highways in the world where you could do 200+ mph, if it's reasonably empty. Of course you are taking your life into your hands, and you could be endangering others, but it *is* possible, and people do go over 200 mph in superexotics and heavily modded cars very frequently. I've been 190+ a few times, and regularly cross 160, around 3 times a week. A while ago I was doing it several times a day, but I have "slowed down" for reasons best left to PMs. :)

Wish McLaren would make a new car--one that's cheaper...

Stratoraptor -- Just remember that Bugatti is now a brand label that someone owns the rights to -- it's changed hands a few times.

The Bugatti that existed in the early 20th century isn't the same Bugatti that produced the EB110, and isn't the same Bugatti that designed the Veyron. A name is worthless unless the same traditions and design philosophy are kept at the company. The rest of the car (Veyron) is the result of parent company VW -- so remember it's a VW car somewhat based on the EB110. Some of the engineering talent at the 1990s Bugatti went to form B-Engineering. Although the Veyron and Edonis are both possible evolutions of the EB110, the Veyron is closer in design, while the Edonis is closer in spirit.

Amanichen, totally awesome post. You should send that in to Evo.

I read in Octane today (see the column by Rowan Atkinson) that the baby McLaren supercar has not been "nixed" so much as "shelved"--Mercedes didn't want to do it, but that doesn't mean McLaren doesn't, or won't. So, it's entirely possible that this project might get revived down the road. The more McLaren distances itself from Mercedes, the higher the chances of this car getting made.

Now to throw some cold water on this already-dying fire--EVO has a small interview with Gordon Murray and he's already left McLaren to try and start a company to make some sort of revolutionary ultra-light car. It's on page 31 of the July 2005 issue (volume 80) and it has a Carrera GT, Holden Monaro, and Ultima GTR on the cover. So, if this baby McLaren does come about, it's going to be missing Gordon Murray's magic dust. But there's lots of other talented engineers in the world. The Lotus Elise was a smash hit long after Colin Chapman: I hope the McLaren F1's successor does come about, and that it stays true to the philosophy behind the legend.

In the EVO article, GM mentions how top speed was never a target for the McLaren F1. They just tested it one day and happened to break the world record. Mini magic, you were right on the mark with what you said.

Stratoraptor -- Just remember that Bugatti is now a brand label that someone owns the rights to -- it's changed hands a few times.

The Bugatti that existed in the early 20th century isn't the same Bugatti that produced the EB110, and isn't the same Bugatti that designed the Veyron. A name is worthless unless the same traditions and design philosophy are kept at the company. The rest of the car (Veyron) is the result of parent company VW -- so remember it's a VW car somewhat based on the EB110. Some of the engineering talent at the 1990s Bugatti went to form B-Engineering. Although the Veyron and Edonis are both possible evolutions of the EB110, the Veyron is closer in design, while the Edonis is closer in spirit.

I don't know what the relevancy is to my post, but yeah, I already knew that.

How does being different from Ettore days affect it today? Bugatti is virtually a brand new manufacturer that VW has prospects for as their exotic car company. If the Veyron flopped, it would hurt sales of any future cars.

Stratoraptor -- Just remember that Bugatti is now a brand label that someone owns the rights to -- it's changed hands a few times.

The Bugatti that existed in the early 20th century isn't the same Bugatti that produced the EB110, and isn't the same Bugatti that designed the Veyron. A name is worthless unless the same traditions and design philosophy are kept at the company. The rest of the car (Veyron) is the result of parent company VW -- so remember it's a VW car somewhat based on the EB110. Some of the engineering talent at the 1990s Bugatti went to form B-Engineering. Although the Veyron and Edonis are both possible evolutions of the EB110, the Veyron is closer in design, while the Edonis is closer in spirit.


You put my thoughts exactly to words with this "VERY WELL SAID" post!

I don't know what the relevancy is to my post, but yeah, I already knew that.




Well I said that because you can't treat Bugatti as its own company anymore...it's now just a nameplate for VW.

Everybody knew that Bugatti were way in over their heads when the problems started to arise and then delay after delay of production. Bugatti really needed this after boasting so much about their ambition. They were becoming a laughing stock for thinking that their mission was that easy to accomplish and to release anything less would only cement that image which would hurt their future as an exotic car manufacturer.VW absorbed the EB110 design and took it to the extreme for the Veyron -- it's their vision of what the next Bugatti would be. B-Engineering took remaining EB110 chassis and made a very competant car with it, and released it in 2001. B-Engineering never boasted about power or top speed...they just made it, and in less time than it took VW to finally make the Veyron stable at high speeds. It just seems like nameplate abuse to me -- it's obvious where the real engineering talent at Bugatti went to. We're now at 2005 and finally the Veyron is fully cooked, after being a series of half-baked prototypes that first debuted in the year 2000.

I know it may seem like nitpicking, but you can't call Bugatti, "Bugatti" anymore.

It's still not fully cooked.

B-Engineering, and Bugatti in its previous life, may have engineering talent, but what happened to design talent? Are they all blind or what? It was heartening to read (in EVO's in-depth article of Bugatti last month) that a lot of the people within Bugatti never warmed to the styling of the EB110. Too bad they were ignored.

It's still not fully cooked.

B-Engineering, and Bugatti in its previous life, may have engineering talent, but what happened to design talent? Are they all blind or what? It was heartening to read (in EVO's in-depth article of Bugatti last month) that a lot of the people within Bugatti never warmed to the styling of the EB110. Too bad they were ignored.Yeah, the Edonis looks like a EB110 front end slapped onto a Zonda rear end. I'm not a fan of the looks. I agree that the EB110 looks a little weird...it's too stocky and boxy to feel like a supercar. The Veyron looks more like a luxury cruising coupe than a nimble supercar.

Well I said that because you can't treat Bugatti as its own company anymore...it's now just a nameplate for VW.

VW absorbed the EB110 design and took it to the extreme for the Veyron -- it's their vision of what the next Bugatti would be. B-Engineering took remaining EB110 chassis and made a very competant car with it, and released it in 2001. B-Engineering never boasted about power or top speed...they just made it, and in less time than it took VW to finally make the Veyron stable at high speeds. It just seems like nameplate abuse to me -- it's obvious where the real engineering talent at Bugatti went to. We're now at 2005 and finally the Veyron is fully cooked, after being a series of half-baked prototypes that first debuted in the year 2000.

I know it may seem like nitpicking, but you can't call Bugatti, "Bugatti" anymore.
I can agree that this is a new reformed company, but I have never contested otherwise. Usually during parnerships and hostile take-overs, there is a big change that happens to the subsidiary company.

In any case, the point of my post was to admire the tenacity of the people of Bugatti to achieve there goal. They could have just slapped together parts like B. Engineering did and we would just have another faceless addition to the sea of supercars we have today. Bugatti was going bankrupt until VW stepped in and now VW wants Bugatti to get some recognition. The only way of doing that is if they do something big. Going 400km/h is a techological feat for a street car and would get Bugatti the attention that they wanted. They spent the last few years working to deliver what they had promised which is much more difficult than to admit defeat and build a car that goes 350km/h.

Give anything enough power and it will do 400 km/h. Even a jumbo jet. The trick is to keep the engine size small, the package light, and the handling manageable, and the look, beautiful. The Veyron doesn't really stand out in any of these areas... How is it such an achievement?

Give anything enough power and it will do 400 km/h. Even a jumbo jet. The trick is to keep the engine size small, the package light, and the handling manageable, and the look, beautiful. The Veyron doesn't really stand out in any of these areas... How is it such an achievement?
I never new that aesthetic beauty and engine size affected top speed.

Your claim of "all you need is power" is dead wrong. Bugatti found out first hand in the early stages of the Veyron project, that's why it took so long for it to be released.

The bottom line: a streetcar did over 400km/h repeatedly and that is an achievement.

What, you don't know that the better-looking something is, the faster it will go? Didn't you pay attention in school?

I didn't say they affected top speed. You just decided to interpret it that way. What I meant was, in order to have a successful overall package, these additional elements are also needed. And the smaller the engine with which you make a certain amount of power, the more impressive it is. I am sure you know this, so why the snippy tone?

It's true--all you need is power. How do you think trucks go over 200 mph at Bonneville? If you want to handle at that speed, and if your tires need to last, then that takes development effort in other areas. But for raw top speed, all you need is horsepower to get an object to punch through the air harder--no matter how unaerodynamic the object. If something's topping out at a certain speed, you can either streamline it so it goes faster before topping out, or you can give it more power so it pushes harder.

Yes, it's an achievement of sorts. But when you take their years of development effort, resources consumed, and engine size into account, it's far less an achievement than the McLaren. I would like to see the Veyron win at Le Mans--then I will be impressed.

I am just saying the Veyron's not as impressive as the McLaren. Even as far as top speed is concerned--yeah, they got there eventually, but since it's a bit misguided to focus on that as a benchmark for a supercar in the first place, even that "achievement" becomes less impressive--especially when it's 10 years down the road and the record has been broken by a pretty slim margin, with something making gobs more horsepower and having a much bigger engine. I am not asking you to agree, but I hope you get my point?

If you look back, I did say you have to give credit where it's due. The Veyron is faster than the McLaren, yes. Whoop de doo.Theoretically, yes, more power does equate to a higher top speed. However in the real world, other laws of physics have to be applied -- not isolated to one factor. Those 200mph trucks you spoke of have all been modified for better aerodynamics and likely suspension geometry as well.

What does winning Le Mans have to do with getting the production speed record?

I agree that building a supercar for the premises of claiming the top speed record is pretty stupid, but the fact remains that this is a record nonetheless. It takes a lot of work to produce a car that can reach a high top speed and remain relatively stable. Think back in DA, there was a whole chapter about aerodynamics and later in the book when they were testing XP3, suspension is taken into consideration for high speed stability. You may think it's easy to just build a car that approaches 250mph, but in the real world it takes a lot of work and effort.

I disagree with your statement that all rollerskates should be pink. I think there should be blue ones as well. What do you think about turbocharged scooters? Do you like them better than trucks?