Holy F*cking shit the Bugatti Chiron!

Off Topic
41

That is fine when someone actually knows how to control its car, but most of us (and probably over 90% of car owners) aren’t that skilled. My first 2 cars didn’t have ABS (the first only had power steering…not even airbags) and locking the wheels on a emergency situation (when some jerk crosses in front of you without even looking ot both sides of the road) it’s one of the must frustrating feelings in the world.

I like what Strop said, everyone can have an idea of what a hyper-car is, but facts are facts, and if a car is faster with TC than a other car without it,* it is faster* (and probably safest). Like a DSC transmission vs a manual gearbox, some might say it is less engaging or that you have less control, but at the end* it is faster*. But of course, that’s my opinion.

42

Having stayed out of this “argument,” I feel like I should chime in with some crappy opinion.

If a car with TC is faster than the same car W/O TC then the one with TC is faster. TC is more of a safety feature over a “go faster” feature, but many companies have found their ways to make stupid fast cars using the “limitations” of a traction control. So I don’t see TC as a hampering thing, more a helpful, LIFESAVING feature. Similar to ABS.

That’s my 2 cents though.

43

That thing is hideous O.o

As for the Eurofighter Typhoon… it is wholly incapable of flying without it’s stability augmentation systems until it reaches supersonic speeds; which will cause its center of lift to transition to behind its center of gravity rendering it inherently stable. At subsonic speeds the Eurofighter’s center of lift is ahead of its center of gravity, and that makes it inherently unstable and it is very unlikely that a human will be able to maintain level flight. Any increase in angle of attack, for example pitching the nose up will further move the center of lift forward and will violently flip the aircraft over unless the augmentation system deflects the canards downward, possibly the elevons as well. There are few modern military aircraft that are capable of non-augmented flight.

My view on stabilty aids on cars is that it has to be done “right”. A stability augmentation system should be there to help the driver maintain control over his or her vehicle… not take control out of their hands. This is the critical point of the discussion in my eyes. An anti-lock braking system is a “good” system. It prevents wheel lock-up, and in turn allows you to maintain steering control over your vehicle. It also decreases braking distance; which is always a good thing.

I think most of the hatred of stability augmentation system comes from the fairly primitive ESC systems found on modern cars. They function by applying brakes on individual wheels to prevent excessive slip-angles. They are indeed very disruptive and intrusive, and I don’t like that system at all. Here I completely agree with the hatred of it. It is built to be inexpensive and its purpose is simply to prevent a person who does not understand what they are doing from losing the rear end in the most common situations. It will attempt to and usually succeed in preventing you from killing yourself, but in the process it destroys any and all enjoyment from driving the vehicle; even in situations where its activation is simply unwarrented and unnecessary.

Not all stability control systems are like this though. An excellent example is the legendary Nissan Skylines R32, R33, and R34. These cars had progressively more and more advanced forms of stability augmentation. Skylines did things that other cars were simply incapable of doing. They were capable of this only because of their advanced electronics. The Skylines had fully electronically controlled differentials which were capable of sending from 0 to 50% power to the front axle and 0 to 100% of power to a single rear wheel. It also had the rear wheels steer by up to 10 degrees. The computer of the car decided what to do and how to do it… but it wasn’t disruptive at all. The system allowed the driver to maintain control of the vehicle at all times. It helped you. No one ever said the Skyline is a boring car to drive. It was exhilarating because of the feeling that you could do anything and get away with it. Even without ever driving one, I can say that I wouldn’t feel safer or more in control in any other vehicle than a Skyline because of its well designed electronics.

So my point is this; the stabilty control has to be made in such a way as to help the driver maintain control of the vehicle; and not by preventing the vehicle from ever entering a situation where control can potentially be lost. I do not consider a (reasonable slip-angle) drift to be inherently labeled as a loss of control, and neither did the Skyline.

44

You are actually overselling it. I like the things, allright, but you are actually raising it to god status. If you wish to do so - recap the R32 racing wins, not just list things that aren’t very accurate.
Cars were capable of doing so before the R32. R32 had a mechanical rear diff, while yes 33 and 34 went electronical. The work of the electronic assists was not disruptive TO A DEGREE, as in you could maintain a bit of a hoon, but going overboard prompted the car to return you to a normal driving mode with the front pointing where you were going. And yes, yes there were people who tested the thing and stated that it was boring. In an OLD top gear segment, before the stooges an array of cars was given a thrashing and the fun factor was decided by 3 presenters, the R33 GT-R was shot down instantly, even though it was 2nd fastest.

45

In automation terms, I have a car that without driving aids has a drivability of 0.

With all the driving aids this value rises to 1.0.

I’d say that is a situation where it is done right :stuck_out_tongue:

46

[quote=“strop”]In automation terms, I have a car that without driving aids has a drivability of 0.

With all the driving aids this value rises to 1.0.

I’d say that is a situation where it is done right :stuck_out_tongue:[/quote]

Claps

48

Mate, the reason the F1 is the king is because it was ahead of it’s time, and it still holds a 25 year old world record as the fastest natural car, and it had the fastest topspeed untill the S7 and Veyron came out in 2005. The F1 is pretty much the first hyper car, and it still beats modern cars, it has honor and dignity, the same can’t be said about the Veyron. It also dominated in F1.

Sigh… Ok, lets’ unravel this twisted yarnball.

Define “ahead of it’s time”. It has a Naturally aspirated v12 engine, which let’s be honest, is nothing new by the early 90’s. It’s simply RWD, which also brings nothing to the table. It’s got carbon fiber, which is also been in use in supercars before it. The “omg it holds a record for a naturally aspirated car”, well a 1970 Porsche 917LH holds the fastest average speed record at Le Mans still. This means absolutely nothing since the track has been changed since then. Same with the McLaren - the tech has moved on to turbocharging. It’s the last of it’s era, there’s only that. If anything, it’s just a car specifically designed to go fast in a straight line, something a LOT of people are hating the Veyron for. To go around the corners proper it needed serious aero help, hence LM, GT sporting aero that made it slower in the top speed department.

The fact that “only s7 and veyron managed to beat it’s top speed” is actually due to the fact that nobody cared to. Yes, nobody needed to build a car that can do 400kph, because marketing departments are not filled with idiots. Veyron brought about the era of “top speed for bragging rights even if we lose money on each we sell” and that was all because Mr. Piech likes to run his mouth too much (If you got no idea what I’m referring to, then you did not do your research of the Veryron beyond the basic spec sheet reading). No sane company would see this as a viable marketing strategy, and the likes of Hennessey and Saleen are just doing it to get some spotlight to their companies, and the way they can do so is by beating a Veyron. As in “Nobody STILL needs or actually wants to build cars that would beat the Maccas top speed. They are not required by the market”.

The “honour and dignity”. Well, tell me about all this dignity, mid-positioned, 3 abreast, look at my doors, i have gold lined engine bay McLaren specialists. And do not start about “gold is the best heat insulator” since it failed the heat test in a P1. If you want actual dignified supercar you’re going to go a year earlier and see a Jag XJ220. Simple design, classic lines, cheap bits here and there, simplistic interior, v6 turbo out of racecar and that’s all there is to it. So no, it is anything BUT dignified, it’s just as shouty and weird as the rest of them. Veyron actually DOES have dignity, as it is just engineered to be what it needs to be. There is no tetra-mega-helix-wacko door hinges as a Koenigsegg does, there’s no gimmicky driver positioning, there isn’t shouty design features, it’s just plain and simple on the outside and massive engineering on the inside lined with the best quality interior you could get. It came, it trampled the opposition as the best CAR of all hypercars, and was done with it.

P.S: I do hope you know that McLaren F1 supercar has absolutely nothing to do with a McLaren F1 team. As a bare minimum it was not used in F1, so I do not know where you got that info from.

49

I’m just that little imp that floats over people’s shoulder, making little whispers here and there in this very shouty debate… but what the fuck is a “dignified car”? xD

As much as I don’t consider the old Top Gear as a reliable source of information so much as a very weighty opinion, they did have a point when they said that supercars seemingly had their madness tempered in the noughties. Consider the hype versus reality of the Porsche Carrera GT (that powerplant. That output. That supposed top speed, wait, so slow?). And then consider the fact that it is still a razor sharp beast that will send you through the Pearly Gates backwards, on fire, as it did the late Walker and his friend Rodas… which only goes to show that there’s many metrics afoot when considering just what makes a supercar’s status.

50

In my opinion the best metric to evaluate a supercar’s success is very simple: desirability.

Granted, it may not be easy to measure, but you could do a global poll among automotive journalists or something like that.
Pure performance or an impressive tech sheet do not guarantee desirability. There must be gorgeous styling, an alluring brand image
and a strong personality. A great engine sound, an inviting cockpit and all that. It’s not about who’s fastest, it’s about whose car you
would actually buy if you had gazillion monies.

51

I’ve got one response to that: desirability is not a metric. It has very little in the way of measure, and that is why we have such amusing arguments :wink:

[size=85]For example I cannot tell you how many times I have thoroughly disagreed with The Cool Wall… yet undeniably the opinions of those who run it have actually shaped the fates of entire companies.[/size]

52

You can measure desirability. That’s a basic psychological measurement. You can do it by means of questionnaires and polls or you can
even conduct a “lab” experiment where you measure brain activity while showing pictures of different designs. They do research
like this every day at the uni where I used to study this stuff. It’s of course always going to be subjective, but how can you ever rate cars without a subjective element?

The cool wall is not scientific of course. Subjective CAN be scientific once you have enough of a population to measure stuff with. Not with a population of 3 journalists obviously :slight_smile:

53

Let me rephrase then. Sure, we can ‘measure’ desirability, but just how good/useful a measure is any of it?

Far be it from my intention* to start a shit fight about scientific validity, but I can’t help but comment that surely the jury is still out over whether studies in the field of psychology are, erm, for the most part reproducible? :laughing: I mean there was that paper about how they weren’t, and now there’s a counter paper that says that paper was wrong…

[size=85]* Okay, maybe I’m lying and I’m deliberately stirring the pot with tenuously related assertions :stuck_out_tongue: Keep in mind that, as a medical doctor, I’m well aware of the pitfalls of the studies undertaken within my own field of industry, so it’s not like I’m saying that other fields are necessarily any better…[/size]

54

A fair point. But then we could of course say that any science that includes human subjects will immediately lose all validity. And then we will be arguing more about whether or not we CAN actually come to a good conclusion or whether it will all remain just a philosophical debate :slight_smile: My point about the “desirability” metric is that we can in fact determine which cars are most desirable to most people. And since the same question is also very personal for each individual, the results of such measurements may be entirely irrelevant if they don’t meet with any particular individuals personal views.

But since this is Automation and we’re all playing car manufacturers, a “desirability” metric can be a very useful one. If we know the parameters that together make the most desirable supercar *for most people *and we were to, for example, implement those parameters on our own supercar design, chances are the general public will like the car more than they did if we completely ignore such knowledge of the general public’s likes and dislikes.

Or we could do what I do, and I presume most people do, and just build a car I personally like. But then I will post the car on this forum and try to present it as well as I can in hopes that other people will like it too and they will tell me nice things about the design…

But on the IRL supercars I guess it’s all down to whether we speak personal preference or general preference. I think the healthier approach would be to simple say “I like this car a lot BECAUSE…” rather than try to prove by numbers or technological details which car is better than which. Because if we’re honest, supercars and hypercars are all about emotions. And it’s bound to be personal to a great extent. If we’re just playing the childish (or politician-like) game of “mine is better than yours because blah blah” we’re just arguing for the sake of argument. And then it will, at best, become a philosophical debate with no real outcome.

So in terms of desirability I’ll just share a couple examples about my personal views:

-I like Bugatti EB110 more than Ferrari F40 because it’s more ambitious yet it doesn’t blow it.
-I like Vector W2 because to me it’s the most aggressive wedge shape out there and it comes with a huge twin turbo engine.
-I don’t like the Bugatti Veyron because it’s too polished in execution yet still clumsy and blunt at the same time.

Anyone care to share their views based on this approach? :stuck_out_tongue:

55

To nitpick: I wouldn’t go so far as to say that. After all, if we are mindful with what it is we are attempting to quantify and how, and we pay due attention to the methods by which we derive our assessment of the reliability and power of a study, then we can establish a reasonable status of validity of studies but only for ones based on tangible, reproducible observations. Mortality is the clearest measure we have. Morbidity, to an extent, though the further you get away from such binary outcomes such as dead/alive, the murkier it does get.

Anyway, without getting into it too much, not least because a) it’s not directly relevant to this forum b) I have zero formal background in psychology so most of my thoughts come from other disciplines, I would actually like to think that behaviours of individuals and in populations can be modelled should one use sensible premises on which to establish the drivers of our behaviour (noting that I’m not making any arguments in favour of pure determinism or even, to extrapolate, a physical reductionist interpretation of consciousness). The corollary to that is that I do think that there is plenty of scope for psychology as a field to continue to describe our behaviours (only exactly what that scope is, and how we assess it by our standard scientific yardsticks, becomes the devil in the details).

If I didn’t believe in any of that, after all, I would have completely disregarded anything and everything about the Markets tab in Automation, and possibly gone so far as to deny that there was any use in dividing the automotive market into discrete or distinct markets with distinct consumer groups. In fact one would wonder why I’d even bother with a game like Automation in the first place given its vision as stated from the get go! Even by anecdotal observation, this is absurd, so my earlier post was at least in part playing Devil’s advocate. In fact I’m very interested in the relationship between the Automation metric and our personal takes on how desirable a car is, hence the existence of The Car Shopping Round.

More importantly, IMHO the reason why the supercar market is so hotly debated with so many differing opinions is due to a) the premise of a supercar and b) the rarefied sample space. Supercars are, I think you inferred already, by definition distinctive, unique, outlandish, ephemeral, out of this world, and assessments are therefore governed by the world of emotion and evocation. Unlike say, the city or family segments, they do relate significantly less strongly to our common, utilitarian requirements, and are also far less affordable, so we don’t have a pool of experience of millions of units over decades to compare a Mazda3 to a Toyota Corolla. We probably don’t even have a forum user who has actually driven or ridden in most of the supercars we’re talking about. It’s also worth noting that I do think the calculations regarding market competitiveness in Hypercar, Supercar etc. etc. are less useful than in most other segments, again for the same reasons.

With that in mind, the simple truth is that heated arguments about which supercar is better than another is mainly hot air, blown directly from your ass. Now, I’m a flatulent guy who enjoys a good toot now and then, but everybody would do well to remember not to stink up the room too much :stuck_out_tongue:

56


57

Also: pbfcomics.com/20/

59

Your post is fine, but the quoting tags derped, so they’re misattributed. In addition when you do edit the post, can you snip most of it? The posts referenced are still on the same page so it’s desirable not to repost the entire wall of text, cheers.

60

Regardless of “purity”, I’m just not interested in the Bugatti. Or most any modern supercars. Or supercars at all. But clearly, they do have a target audience that loves them. So, I can’t fault it’s existence. So, I guess until something interesting does come along, I’ll be in Automation, trying to build something capable of tackling the world race.