Weber Faster One: Faster & Uglier than the Veyron

[MacGuffin]

It's really funny how everyone's trying to beat the Bugatti Veyron with simplicity. They obviously did not get the whole point of the Veyron as a technological showpiece.

I mean, it's like someone spent a lot of money and engineering power developing new brakes that defy what was technologically possible before.

And then someone comes from some hole in the ground and says: "I can do that, too, with simpler methods" - and throws an anchor out of the car's window...

[Quadrax]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

I mean, it's like someone spent a lot of money and enegineering power developing new brakes that defy what was technologically possible before.

And then someone comes from some hole in the ground and says: "I can do that, too, with simpler methods" - and throws an anchor out of the car's window...

I like that analogy!

[DTMracer]

I'll stick to my Koenigsegg thank you...

[Quadrax]

Originally Posted by DTMracer

I'll stick to my Koenigsegg thank you...

You own a koenigsegg?

[DTMracer]

I wish =P

[MacGuffin]

He wouldn't be able to post here, if he owned one, because he'd either be dead or in a wheel chair

[DTMracer]

But that's why I like stuff like the Koenigsegg or AMGs. They're scary and lairy cars to drive.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by MacGuffin

It's really funny how everyone's trying to beat the Bugatti Veyron with simplicity. They obviously did not get the whole point of the Veyron as a technological showpiece.

I mean, it's like someone spent a lot of money and engineering power developing new brakes that defy what was technologically possible before.

And then someone comes from some hole in the ground and says: "I can do that, too, with simpler methods" - and throws an anchor out of the car's window...

A good engineer, when presented with a complex problem, will come up with a complex but functional solution.

A *GREAT* engineer, when presented with a complex problem, will come up with a simple and functional solution.

Case in point, World War II tanks.

German solution: Design superb, highly complex tanks like the King Tiger, which could beat any six Allied tanks - but which cost a lot of money and took forever to make or repair.

American solution: Design a simpler tank that was adequate for most purposes, was cheap and simple to build, and then make LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of them - so that when a King Tiger showed up, it didn't have SIX Shermans to fight and defeat... but SIXTEEN or SIXTY - which the Tiger couldn't beat. And even assuming a 6:1 loss ratio in favor of the Germans, the time and cost basis was not in their favor.

So, who had the better engineering team, again?

That said, yes, the Veyron is a technological tour de force - but if you can do the same thing with simpler or less technology, doesn't that mean that the Veyron is overcomplicated and that the engineers were sloppy?

[the Interceptor]

So sixteen Hennessey Vipers can beat one Veyron?

... on a more serious note:

Originally Posted by Spectre

That said, yes, the Veyron is a technological tour de force - but if you can do the same thing with simpler or less technology, doesn't that mean that the Veyron is overcomplicated and that the engineers were sloppy?

The point (which MacGuffin made very well) is that there is no car to date - and probably never will be - that beats the Veyron as a whole. There are cars that accelerate faster, or have a higher top speed, but not a single one that outdoes the Veyron and offers the same build quality, comfort and control at the same time. And those are the exact qualities you can't do any simpler than Bugatti did it.

[amdforever]

Nobody cares about how fast it is, because it has crossed the threshold of ugliness.

[MacGuffin]

Originally Posted by Spectre

A good engineer, when presented with a complex problem, will come up with a complex but functional solution.

A *GREAT* engineer, when presented with a complex problem, will come up with a simple and functional solution.

Case in point, World War II tanks.

German solution: Design superb, highly complex tanks like the King Tiger, which could beat any six Allied tanks - but which cost a lot of money and took forever to make or repair.

American solution: Design a simpler tank that was adequate for most purposes, was cheap and simple to build, and then make LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of them - so that when a King Tiger showed up, it didn't have SIX Shermans to fight and defeat... but SIXTEEN or SIXTY - which the Tiger couldn't beat. And even assuming a 6:1 loss ratio in favor of the Germans, the time and cost basis was not in their favor.

So, who was the better engineer there?

Well, when you need to go 65 years back to find a comparison, then you really confirmed my point That being said, the allies were impressed by the durability and reliability of German Diesel engines back then - something they didn't have

Just to prevent another thread being closed because of me being ironic and sarcastic, I'll stop further commenting that matter now.

Back to the Veyron instead: Name one car that can deliver the same with simpler methods. The required specs are:

- going from 0-300 km/h in unter 20 seconds
- Achieving a top speed of over 400 km/h
- Not killing you when moving fast, only because you don't happen to be a trained racing driver
- Reliability and heat stability even on long runs (see Top Gear race)
- Same build quality, trim and features the Veyron offers
- Existing ride comfort even on long runs
- Ability for everyday use, e.g. handling stop and go traffic without driving you nuts
- Expected lifespan of engine and gearbox of more than 100.000 miles

Now your turn

[jackernapes]

Originally Posted by Spectre

A good engineer, when presented with a complex problem, will come up with a complex but functional solution.

A *GREAT* engineer, when presented with a complex problem, will come up with a simple and functional solution.

Case in point, World War II tanks.

German solution: Design superb, highly complex tanks like the King Tiger, which could beat any six Allied tanks - but which cost a lot of money and took forever to make or repair.

American solution: Design a simpler tank that was adequate for most purposes, was cheap and simple to build, and then make LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of them - so that when a King Tiger showed up, it didn't have SIX Shermans to fight and defeat... but SIXTEEN or SIXTY - which the Tiger couldn't beat. And even assuming a 6:1 loss ratio in favor of the Germans, the time and cost basis was not in their favor.

So, who had the better engineering team, again?

That said, yes, the Veyron is a technological tour de force - but if you can do the same thing with simpler or less technology, doesn't that mean that the Veyron is overcomplicated and that the engineers were sloppy?

Already responded to, like, 10 million times, but still wanna throw in my piece ><

(Dammit, I hate being late)

I understand your comparison between a good engineer and a great engineer, thats not my problem, completely agree with you on that.

However, I think you're misunderstanding one thing: These "top speed production car record breakers" and the Veyron address two VERY different problems. The record breakers solve the problem of "how do we go faster than X" (X being the current fastest car). THATS IT. The Veyron aims to do something so much more. When the Veyron was made, the problem was "money no object, how do we make the best car ever".

Now keep in mind, this is my interpretation of the Veyron. I don't think it fully fulfills this role, but it comes VERY close. It is not "all things to all men", but it very nearly is. Much more so than these cars that have overcome its top speed record in the past few years. These record breakers are (most likely) not going to be rock solid past 220 mph, they are not going to last for 20 years (and beyond), they are not going to be comfortable in all conditions. The Veyron does all of these things. It can probably beat anything around a track. It can make a trip around the world and not even flinch. It is the most luxurious car to be in, short of the back seat of a Maybach. It is easy to drive (key in socket, gear in drive, foot to floor). I will still be able to find one of these, with a bit of effort, in good working condition somewhere in the world well after I'm over the hill (which, if you must know, is a good 30 years from now). The only things I can easily say it is beaten in is family friendliness/gadgetry, in which the Merc S-class will always be king, and price (duh).

In fact, lets just say, we don't compare the Veyron anymore. It is beyond comparison at this point. I really do hope that sometime in the future, although highly unlikely, we will see something that surpasses its level of excellence. That would surely be a sight to see.

[MacGuffin]

Couldn't agree more. The next one will come and say "Hey, I'm faster because I'm being shot out of a cannon - very simplistic, therefore brilliant engineering". It's rubbish.

The Veyron is in fact uncomparable to anything that has been on the road and probably also to whatever will be on the road in the future. I agree with Jeremy Clarkson when he says that we won't see that kind of craziness about automobile engineerung in the future again.

The Veyron is the baby of Dr. Ferdinand Piech. He is a car-crazy engineer, who used to be the chairman of VW at the time and didn't give a damn about the costs. As a billionaire (he's a member of the Porsche family) he was not after money or career when he took the place at the helm of VW, he only saw it as a challenge and as a way to fulfill his dreams. Piech is the one responsible for bringing Volkswagen miles ahead of their competitors in the second half of the 90's, who are still struggling to keep up until today. He is also the man who initiated the Phaeton.

The Bugatti Veyron would have never been possible with any "normal" manager at the helm of VW and it is very unlikely that someone like him will ever have the opportunity again to lead one of the world's biggest car makers..

P.S.: I forgot to mention the braking ability in my specs above.

[Meio]

Originally Posted by Spectre

So, who had the better engineering team, again?

The Russians.

The T34 was so simple that it was cheaper to produce and fix than everything else, had a gun big enough to take out a Tiger (something the Sherman only managed when the British wacked on a decent gun as an 'after market' mod - Sherman Firefly), and the Russians incorporated armour good enough to resist almost all the German anti-tank capabilities, that armour in combination with better tracks and suspension meant that they were more effective than the German tanks in the shit too (LOL leaf springs).

[Night_Hawk]

Russians?

ill wait for the new Speed 12 then

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by Meio

The Russians.

The T34 was so simple that it was cheaper to produce and fix than everything else, had a gun big enough to take out a Tiger (something the Sherman only managed when the British wacked on a decent gun as an 'after market' mod - Sherman Firefly), and the Russians incorporated armour good enough to resist almost all the German anti-tank capabilities, that armour in combination with better tracks and suspension meant that they were more effective than the German tanks in the shit too (LOL leaf springs).

That's because the Russians were insane when it came to military equipment.

[MacGuffin]

What do you mean "were"?

[the Interceptor]

You gotta love the Russians!