I still think the F1 sucks (updated for dec. 2k6)

[DeMoN]

Most the car-enthuthiasts I know prefer the McLaren F1. Not that that matters, however, Tiff liking McLaren F1 more than the Butatti does. IMO the Veyron tries to be too many things at once, classy, fast, luxurious, confortable, and a little bit of each doesnt cut it. The McLaren F1's shape was determined by wind tunnels alone, unlike the veyron. Veyron was "designed" to look like that and even though McLaren F1 wasnt, it still is prettier.

I want to see them do a racing version of the Veyron and it have more success than the McLaren F1 racers.

[nthfinity]

two entirely different fields of cars. the Veyron had specific targets they set out to reach; and atchieved, or overachieved each point... very german.

the F1 was not designed in a wind tunnel; but rather with aerodyamics in mind. the bugatti was designed, the honed in the wind tunnel.

[McLaren4eVa]

Total Bullshit the macca was a sensational car and it neva made a penny for mclaren yet didn't lose any money either(whereas bugatti lose 3.5 mil on each car and they're making 300 thats over 900 mil loss). I think there's a heck of alot of people that will totally disagree with you on that point, martin brundle , tiff needell etc. It was a technological marvel for its time just like the veyron is now. The McLaren Mercedes SLR was built for a mercedes customer in mind whereas had it been the McLaren Mercedes SLR things will have undoubtedly been different. And not to mention in its second year of productions its sold 1000 cars not im not sure but for supercars is that a bad thing. But Nthfinity if you wish to believe it sucks than go ahead but im sure theres plenty of people who thin The F1 is the still the best - me included.

[sameerrao]

Originally Posted by nthfinity the F1 was not designed in a wind tunnel; but rather with aerodyamics in mind. the bugatti was designed, the honed in the wind tunnel.

BS ... There are 10 pages in the book "Driving Ambition" devoted to aerodynamics related work on the F1 in a wind tunnel. The basic concept was not merely hit a target coeff of drag but to get the right centre of pressure. They also checked the movement of CoP underr different circumstances, braking, accelaration, etc. The diffuser fine-tuning took place here.

I think you really need to read up about the car before you comment.

The Veyron is 10 years younger to the f1 and the world of aerodynamics has progressed a lot since then as can be seen in the F1 racing world. But in its time, the F1 was perhaps the most painstakingly thought about car built to an exacting vision of a brilliant man.

[nthfinity]

^^^^^
mabey i ought to read 'driving ambition' -1 for aerodynamics (although it had some lift @ 230 mph... id guess some aerodynamic wave augmentation was the root cause of that.

apparently the F1's break even point was right about 100 cars; wheas it was originally about 200 cars.

the veyron was never about marketing success... it was about delivering the near impossible (under warrenty). who knows how successful it will be. it is a technilogical marvel; and the automotive equivilant to going to the moon in the 60's.

the big difference in my mind between the two; is the F1 can be quite a few beasts (no target in particular); where the veyron is the veyron... change is non-existant.

as i've said, the car was well designed in many ways; but where is the progress? you still have the same parts used as they originally? modern tech evolves, and with it, reliability has trounced what it once was a decade ago...

anyway... perhaps one day, my view of the F1 will change... (perhaps by riding/driving one) but there are other cars (that would end up being cheaper) that i would rather have regardless of price. chiefely being a Dauer 962

[bmagni]

blah blah blah, I don't care what people say, still the F1 sucks, I've never driven one, but as there are the ones who say its the ultimate car, others say its nothing special...
the only reason the F1 is the ultimate supercar is the top speed, people started looking at it, cause of that, and then looking for some other reason they say it drives super excellent, it's a supercar, so it has to do so... still the handling of the regular F1 is crap, they had to add wings to make it better... it has good points, like the 3 seats, but maybe thats about it...
in the end, it sucks, its horrible, its nothing special...

[sameerrao]

^^^

True the progress of time means that todays sports saloons can eclipse a supercar from the 80s in terms of raw speed and braking ability.

But are people throwing away their 250 GTOs, McLaren F1, F40s, etc. just to get the latest technology. I would hazard a guess that very few do so.

As I am growing older, raw statistics like 0-60, 0-200 becomes passe and meaningless. Its the driving experience that matters to me as well as other non-objective aspects like looks, heritage of the make, engine sound ... stuff like that.

If had 1.3MM to spare and I would certainly buy a F1 because it means so much to me. Maybe you would choose the Veyron because it means a lot to you. In the end that's what counts not some discussion into the clutch life of X vs Y car or other nitty-gritties

[bmagni]

Originally Posted by phatbimmer You know what sucks that none of us will ever get a chance to own either an F1, Veyron or Ferrari Enzo LOL! F1 ownz you 8) Also it took the world a decade to make another astonishing car, VW just has too much time on there hands, perhaps if they put the same time and effort into fixing there electronic problems VW's wouldn't be so frowned upon. Same goes for the rest of the Germans.

how do you know no one owns or will ever own one, do you know all our finances and bank accounts ???

and again with the same BS that it took 10 years to make a car as great as the F1... yeah right, great in which way ?? top speed ?? no one cares about top speed, if top speed was the goal, we would have seen something faster than a Mclaren long ago...

[blah]

Originally Posted by bmagni Originally Posted by phatbimmer You know what sucks that none of us will ever get a chance to own either an F1, Veyron or Ferrari Enzo LOL! F1 ownz you 8) Also it took the world a decade to make another astonishing car, VW just has too much time on there hands, perhaps if they put the same time and effort into fixing there electronic problems VW's wouldn't be so frowned upon. Same goes for the rest of the Germans. how do you know no one owns or will ever own one, do you know all our finances and bank accounts ??? and again with the same BS that it took 10 years to make a car as great as the F1... yeah right, great in which way ?? top speed ?? no one cares about top speed, if top speed was the goal, we would have seen something faster than a Mclaren long ago...

BS it took the bugatti so long to even get close to the F1s record let alone break it, same witht he Koneigsegg.

Also there is one member on this site with an Enzo, and an F50, well its his dads.

[LotusGT1]

Originally Posted by nthfinity ^^^^^ mabey i ought to read 'driving ambition' -1 for aerodynamics (although it had some lift @ 230 mph... id guess some aerodynamic wave augmentation was the root cause of that. apparently the F1's break even point was right about 100 cars; wheas it was originally about 200 cars. the veyron was never about marketing success... it was about delivering the near impossible (under warrenty). who knows how successful it will be. it is a technilogical marvel; and the automotive equivilant to going to the moon in the 60's. the big difference in my mind between the two; is the F1 can be quite a few beasts (no target in particular); where the veyron is the veyron... change is non-existant. as i've said, the car was well designed in many ways; but where is the progress? you still have the same parts used as they originally? modern tech evolves, and with it, reliability has trounced what it once was a decade ago... anyway... perhaps one day, my view of the F1 will change... (perhaps by riding/driving one) but there are other cars (that would end up being cheaper) that i would rather have regardless of price. chiefely being a Dauer 962

What a load of bullshit.

Don't start about aerodynamics while you love the Veyron so much. The car had a fucking 2 year delay because the cars aerodynamics sucked at high speeds. Its design was flawed, and it took so much time to correct it without getting away too much from the original design.

The F1 was built for one purpose. To be the ultimate roadcar of its time. And it succeeded in that. It was purposely built to be the best supercar in every aspect. And at the time it was. Central driving position like the mono-post sportscars, goldplated engine covers for best cooling, pretty luxurious yet very light, and built from the best materials you could imagine. Why do you think the F1 has so much legacy already? Don't start crap about luggage space or break even points. Commercialy it wasn't Murray's best set up plan perhaps, but it definately was THE supercar.

LOL@VW trying to "achieve the impossible" with the Veyron. Unlike specialists with a passion, conglomerates like VW tend to built cars for one or two reasons. Either it needs to make money, or it needs to add value to the reputation - marketing etc.

The Veyron is from a technical point not that advanced. It has a W16 engine (two 8 cylinders litteraly slapped together), they put four turbo's on it, gave it AWD because the car is fat as a pig, and you call it a technological marvel? Both the Enzo and the CGT are from a technical standpoint more impressive.

In conclusion, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

EDIT - One of the few guys that complained about its handling was Clarkson btw, Tiff loved it however and named it the best supercar EVER. Guess who is the most credible when it comes to driving?

[blinkmeat]

:roll:

[LotusGT1]

What?

[nthfinity]

Originally Posted by LotusGT1 Originally Posted by nthfinity ^^^^^ mabey i ought to read 'driving ambition' -1 for aerodynamics (although it had some lift @ 230 mph... id guess some aerodynamic wave augmentation was the root cause of that. apparently the F1's break even point was right about 100 cars; wheas it was originally about 200 cars. the veyron was never about marketing success... it was about delivering the near impossible (under warrenty). who knows how successful it will be. it is a technilogical marvel; and the automotive equivilant to going to the moon in the 60's. the big difference in my mind between the two; is the F1 can be quite a few beasts (no target in particular); where the veyron is the veyron... change is non-existant. as i've said, the car was well designed in many ways; but where is the progress? you still have the same parts used as they originally? modern tech evolves, and with it, reliability has trounced what it once was a decade ago... anyway... perhaps one day, my view of the F1 will change... (perhaps by riding/driving one) but there are other cars (that would end up being cheaper) that i would rather have regardless of price. chiefely being a Dauer 962 What a load of bullshit. Don't start about aerodynamics while you love the Veyron so much. The car had a fucking 2 year delay because the cars aerodynamics sucked at high speeds. Its design was flawed, and it took so much time to correct it without getting away too much from the original design. The F1 was built for one purpose. To be the ultimate roadcar of its time. And it succeeded in that. It was purposely built to be the best supercar in every aspect. And at the time it was. Central driving position like the mono-post sportscars, goldplated engine covers for best cooling, pretty luxurious yet very light, and built from the best materials you could imagine. Why do you think the F1 has so much legacy already? Don't start crap about luggage space or break even points. Commercialy it wasn't Murray's best set up plan perhaps, but it definately was THE supercar. LOL@VW trying to "achieve the impossible" with the Veyron. Unlike specialists with a passion, conglomerates like VW tend to built cars for one or two reasons. Either it needs to make money, or it needs to add value to the reputation - marketing etc. The Veyron is from a technical point not that advanced. It has a W16 engine (two 8 cylinders litteraly slapped together), they put four turbo's on it, gave it AWD because the car is fat as a pig, and you call it a technological marvel? Both the Enzo and the CGT are from a technical standpoint more impressive. In conclusion, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. EDIT - One of the few guys that complained about its handling was Clarkson btw, Tiff loved it however and named it the best supercar EVER. Guess who is the most credible when it comes to driving?

and you're calling what i wrote bullshit?

first off; lets see how many miles you can drive both those cars at NS before they become in need of serious mechanical work (assuming niether car crashes out)

sure, the veyron is going to have the greater thirst, and slower cornering speeds (i would tend to think which options you proposed you use for the F1... the LM? the standard F1 (which costomers could ask to be different...)

i would argue taht there is almost no such thing as a standard F1... then again, i really cant since i dont know... i've just heard that there are more options then mcLaren publish... many more options...

they built 104, and i think sold 98 or something... does that mean its an exclusive car, or that it was in teh same league as the XJ220 (bad economic timing) ?

you know... when it comes to Tiff; he later said he much preferred the 911 GT1 to the F1... so take a guess there... mabey it wasn't as cracked up as he says? his most asked about review is of the F1... guess why? the car is a myth... nobody knows shit about it except the few owners...

go read a book about porsche; mabey you'd come to love them as the greatest drivers' cars on earth?

oh, and about top speed... in 95, the Dauer hit 252mph with 730hp...

[blah]

the callaway sledgehammer hit 254 didnt it?

[sentra_dude]

Originally Posted by blah the callaway sledgehammer hit 254 didnt it?

Back in 1988 or something right?

Originally Posted by nthfinity and you're calling what i wrote bullshit? first off; lets see how many miles you can drive both those cars at NS before they become in need of serious mechanical work (assuming niether car crashes out) sure, the veyron is going to have the greater thirst, and slower cornering speeds (i would tend to think which options you proposed you use for the F1... the LM? the standard F1 (which costomers could ask to be different...) i would argue taht there is almost no such thing as a standard F1... then again, i really cant since i dont know... i've just heard that there are more options then mcLaren publish... many more options... they built 104, and i think sold 98 or something... does that mean its an exclusive car, or that it was in teh same league as the XJ220 (bad economic timing) ? you know... when it comes to Tiff; he later said he much preferred the 911 GT1 to the F1... so take a guess there... mabey it wasn't as cracked up as he says? his most asked about review is of the F1... guess why? the car is a myth... nobody knows shit about it except the few owners... go read a book about porsche; mabey you'd come to love them as the greatest drivers' cars on earth? oh, and about top speed... in 95, the Dauer hit 252mph with 730hp...

they built 104, and i think sold 98 or something... does that mean its an exclusive car, or that it was in teh same league as the XJ220 (bad economic timing) ?

107 were built, 64 for street use and 43 for racing.

All things considered, if you look at the current prices for the F1, which are around the original price, or a bit higher, I'd say in a better economic climate more than just a 100 or so could have been sold. There is obviously demand for the car now, if people are willing to pay $1mil, or $1.2mil. Maybe they wouldn't have sold 300, but I'm sure more than just 64 roadcars.

you know... when it comes to Tiff; he later said he much preferred the 911 GT1 to the F1... so take a guess there... mabey it wasn't as cracked up as he says? his most asked about review is of the F1... guess why? the car is a myth... nobody knows shit about it except the few owners...

Tiff said he preferred the 911 GT1, that doesn't mean he suddenly thought the F1 sucked. By the way, what car was featured in the 5th Gear feature, World's Greatest Cars, several years after that GT1 vid by Tiff? Hmm...maybe the F360, the F40, and, surprisingly enough the McLaren F1. Yep, it must suck to Tiff if he featured it on that program. Its as much or as little a myth as every other low volume supercar...

Really, just pick up and flip through a copy of Driving Ambition, you might see what we are talking about.