Ron Dennis says Veyron as 'pig ugly' and 'a complete piece of junk'!

pburns

'Ronspeak' it is not...
(Mind you the new McLaren is more a 458 rival)

http://www.autocar.co.uk/forums/t/12911.aspx

Anan1

I'm sure it's not junk, but it is pig ugly.

af_thefragile

I didn't like the look of the veyron when it first came out. It looked like a Beetle on steroids.

But now I think its one of the most elegant supercar out there.
Its a class above everything else and the design is a timeless classic.
Its not like other supercars all pointy and shouty. Its more elegant with its two tone paint, curves and leather interior.
It looks like a supercar. Not a race car.

muckwarrior

Ugly or not, at least it's got some character, unlike the new Mclaren.

Stevie Dakota

It may be visually unlike anything else and ugly to some, but at least it is not so derivative as the predictable McLaren. Where is the sense of occasion?

af_thefragile

Unlike the EB110 which looks like any other supercar, Bugatti have used a lot of styling cues from classic Bugatti's for the Veyron.

Like it has the classic Bugatti front grill and the "spine" from the classic Type 57.
It also has the two tone paint job of classic Bugattis.

With the Veyron Bugatti weren't just trying to make another supercar. But they were trying to make something that would become a future classic like most old Bugattis. Something the EB110 failed to achieve!

Henry Ford III

Ron himself isn't exactly pretty either

FarmerGreen

Right OK then
We can do 0-200 mph in 6 secs
200-0 in 3.2secs
What colour do you want it and what shape?

pburns

The McLaren is indeed a little bland, especially next to it's nearest rival the 458. And the model name - MP4-12C - is so anal - so typically Dennis-era McLaren.

The Veyon doesn't do much for me either though. Give me a 'lesser', usable everyday supercar like a 458 or 911 any day.

vectra

Call me odd.. But I would have the McLaren anyday over to BUGatti

PrettyBoy

Ridiculous comment. Styling is subjective but it is an engineering masterpiece.

Saab Ed

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Ridiculous comment. Styling is subjective but it is an engineering masterpiece.

I have to say even though the Bugatti stats are something else , given enough time and money any company could have built that car.

I myself didnt think the Bugatti was any sort of evolution of the motorcar, it was just that when something didnt work they just made it bigger / more expensive. There's nothing new on the Bugatti, the entire excercise was forced, nothing pure , nothing revolutionary. Instead of solving development problems with new innovations they just spent unrealistic amounts of money on unrealistic solutions to force the car to work.

Any company could have made that car if they decided to loose their Bolloc£s on it by just adding parts after parts after parts that in any other super car are not needed. Why not start with a blank sheet and come up with something new if you want to change the rules, thats what the F1 did way back in the 90's. The Veyron didnt make the same jump over the competion in the 00's that the F1 made in the 90's or an F40 in the 80's and so on. A Veyron, quick as it is, is just a turbo'd to death monster IMO. If Ferrari welded 2 V8's together , stuck a heap of airplane engine sized turbos to it, developed all the parts with no purpose but to force something to work in a lump hammer through a wall sort of way, spent 10 years doing it and lost millions on each one sold, would we really be saying what a car! I dont think so.

PS I hate Ron Dennis before anyone thinks im some sort of advocate of his musings

pburns

Saab Ed wrote: »

I have to say even though the Bugatti stats are something else , given enough time and money any company could have built that car.

I myself didnt think the Bugatti was any sort of evolution of the motorcar, it was just that when something didnt work they just made it bigger / more expensive. There's nothing new on the Bugatti, the entire excercise was forced, nothing pure , nothing revolutionary. Instead of solving development problems with new innovations they just spent unrealistic amounts of money on unrealistic solutions to force the car to work.

Any company could have made that car if they decided to loose their Bolloc£s on it by just adding parts after parts after parts that in any other super car are not needed. Why not start with a blank sheet and come up with something new if you want to change the rules, thats what the F1 did way back in the 90's. The Veyron didnt make the same jump over the competion in the 00's that the F1 made in the 90's or an F40 in the 80's and so on. A Veyron, quick as it is, is just a turbo'd to death monster IMO. If Ferrari welded 2 V8's together , stuck a heap of airplane engine sized turbos to it, developed all the parts with no purpose but to force something to work in a lump hammer through a wall sort of way, spent 10 years doing it and lost millions on each one sold, would we really be saying what a car! I dont think so.

PS I hate Ron Dennis before anyone thinks im some sort of advocate of his musings

I agree with that 100%.

The Veyron has been venerated on Top Gear, even to the point where it's very average lap time around the TG track was brushed over (you could see the disappointment etched on JC's face!). I think a lot of people have been influenced by this into thinking the Veyron is some sort of deity.

I have mixed feelings about McLaren as a company but I'd be willing to bet the MP4-12C will be a phenomenal drivers tool. Only those interested in juvenille Top Trumps statistics would promote the Veyron. The McLaren F1 from the 90s was a far greater achievement.

subway

im guessing he went to the michael o'leary school of advertising?
take a side in a controversial argument and let the media do the rest

Tea 1000

Ron Dennis always was, and obviously still is a twat. I was never the biggest fan of the McLaren F1, but it is a fantastic car. The MP-52-TDi or whatever it's called looks like the default starting point of supercar design, except they never started, they just left it default.
Comments like the Bugatti is junk are so childish and incorrect, it's sad that he's still a bitter old man. Gordon Murray is the man behind McLaren's supercars, Ron can claim nothing.
While Saab Ed has a point, it's throwing money at a problem until it's solved, it doesn't take from the fact that the Bugatti is a comfortable car that anyone here could safely drive to it's 253mph limit. That's some achievement, no matter how it's achieved. They never claimed that it's supposed to be driving nirvana! Criticising it because it's slower around a track than Pagani's latest and greatest is like saying the 599 is crap because it's slower around a track than a 430 Scuderia. You'd just be missing the point.
I don't like the new McLaren, I'd get a Noble instead. I like the Bugatti, I like it for what it is, not for what it isn't.

af_thefragile

Saab Ed wrote: »

I have to say even though the Bugatti stats are something else , given enough time and money any company could have built that car.

I myself didnt think the Bugatti was any sort of evolution of the motorcar, it was just that when something didnt work they just made it bigger / more expensive. There's nothing new on the Bugatti, the entire excercise was forced, nothing pure , nothing revolutionary. Instead of solving development problems with new innovations they just spent unrealistic amounts of money on unrealistic solutions to force the car to work.

Any company could have made that car if they decided to loose their Bolloc£s on it by just adding parts after parts after parts that in any other super car are not needed. Why not start with a blank sheet and come up with something new if you want to change the rules, thats what the F1 did way back in the 90's. The Veyron didnt make the same jump over the competion in the 00's that the F1 made in the 90's or an F40 in the 80's and so on. A Veyron, quick as it is, is just a turbo'd to death monster IMO. If Ferrari welded 2 V8's together , stuck a heap of airplane engine sized turbos to it, developed all the parts with no purpose but to force something to work in a lump hammer through a wall sort of way, spent 10 years doing it and lost millions on each one sold, would we really be saying what a car! I dont think so.

PS I hate Ron Dennis before anyone thinks im some sort of advocate of his musings

You're missing out on a big point here.

Yes anyone can stick huge turbos on massive engines and create a super fast car. But what Bugatti have done is create a car that can do over 400kmph and stay perfectly composed while doing that. And it can do that over and over again. There are many people who have stuck massive turbos on Nissan Skylines and squeezed out 1000bhp out of it. But those cars also blow up or fall apart after driving them at the limit a few times.

Building a powerful engine is not very hard at all. But building a car that can do over 400kmph is something else. The F1 gearbox is only meant to last a couple of races. So is the components with most other race cars. The Bugatti's gear box and drivetrain is meant to last atleast 10 years without getting stressed while handling 1000bhp. This is a big achievement.

Most cars while on the limit of what they can do feel like they're about to fall apart any moment. The Bugatti can go over 400kmph without any drama or anything. It feels perfectly composed at that speed like you might be doing 100kmph. Thats an achievement too.

They didn't just force the parts to work in a Bugatti. They force parts to work in race cars which is why they need to be completely rebuilt after every one or two races. The Bugatti is meant to last years and so they needed to develop parts that could handle 1000bhp, do 400kmph and last atleast 10 years. That is quite a big achievement.

It hasn't been made to be the fastest around the track either like most other supercars. Its a heavy thing. Its been developed to do over 400kmph and not in a do it once and rebuild the car again way but keep doing it over and over again without any part failing.

Everyone who has driven a Bugatti (not just Jeremy Clarkson) has said its a class above everything else.

Gordon Murray first criticized the Veyron being a pointless exercise. But after he drove it he couldn't help saying he was impressed by it.

unkel

Sour grapes. Nothing that Dennis will ever make will stand a chance against the achievement of the Veyron, and he knows it. It's understandable he feels that way though, humiliated when his F1 was beaten by the Veyron even when it was given a 120MPH headstart.

As for beauty, his new car isn't a looker either...

Saab Ed

unkel wrote: »

It's understandable he feels that way though, humiliated when his F1 was beaten by the Veyron even when it was given a 120MPH headstart.

Thats nonsense, they were nearly 20 years apart.

The F1 is still a far bigger technical acheivment than the Bugatti ever will be. The Bugatti is brute force, the F1 is pure technical innovation.


Every car in the world ( including 1000 bhp Skylines ) would be quicker and reliable if they had a million billion of money to spend on their indefinite development. An aeroplane will do 400 kmh in a straight line but just like a Veyron it wont look much cop compared to a true super car going around a bend

GavRedKing

Is a Veyron ugly,to a degree yes, its not the most beautiful car ever but its far from the most ugly ever either, its shaped and designed and therefore looks the way it does to be able to acheieve its potential and what VW claimed.

Is it junk, no, just no. This is a simple facepalm moment, claiming it as junk is just silly and pointless.

af_thefragile

Saab Ed wrote: »

Thats nonsense, they were nearly 20 years apart.

The F1 is still a far bigger technical acheivment than the Bugatti ever will be. The Bugatti is brute force, the F1 is pure technical innovation.


Every car in the world ( including 1000 bhp Skylines ) would be quicker and reliable if they had a million billion of money to spend on their indefinite development. An aeroplane will do 400 kmh in a straight line but just like a Veyron it wont look much cop compared to a true super car going around a bend

Yes and Bugatti have done that with the Veyron. If Nissan could have spent a million billion on developing a 400kmph Skyline that could do that day after day without falling apart and being perfectly, then we'ld say Nissan has done something great with the 400kmph Skyline. But they didn't.

And its not like the Veyron is slow or anything. Its just a bit slower than supercars built with the sole purpose to go fast around a track. Cars like the Gumpert Apollo and the Pagani Zonda F. The Veyron is still the fastest car from 0-200mph and it'll make every other car biting dust in a race from 0-200mph.

The Mclaren was a great achievement yes. And it was time for things to step up and move on. The Veyron is the next biggest achievement in motoring since the Mclaren. Bugatti built a car that could be used everyday and could still go over 400kmph without any major drama.

A Boeing 747 takes off at 180mph. A Veyron can do 250mph and needs to stay on the ground while doing that, which it does. Without any aero bits sticking out of if like on the Pagani Zonda or Gumpert Apollo. It just has one spoiler.

Saab Ed

af_thefragile wrote: »

Yes and Bugatti have done that with the Veyron. If Nissan could have spent a million billion on developing a 400kmph Skyline that could do that day after day without falling apart and being perfectly, then we'ld say Nissan has done something great with the 400kmph Skyline. But they didn't.

And its not like the Veyron is slow or anything. Its just a bit slower than supercars built with the sole purpose to go fast around a track. Cars like the Gumpert Apollo and the Pagani Zonda F. The Veyron is still the fastest car from 0-200mph and it'll make every other car biting dust in a race from 0-200mph.

The Mclaren was a great achievement yes. And it was time for things to step up and move on. The Veyron is the next biggest achievement in motoring since the Mclaren. Bugatti built a car that could be used everyday and could still go over 400kmph without any major drama.

A Boeing 747 takes off at 180mph. A Veyron can do 250mph and needs to stay on the ground while doing that, which it does. Without any aero bits sticking out of if like on the Pagani Zonda or Gumpert Apollo. It just has one spoiler.

We could end up going around in circles and I think its fair to say both sides of the argument have their merits. I just prefer the simple answer to the problem. I like to see innovation and people coming up with something new to really advance the cause. Numbers alone just done do it for me. While im the first to admit what Bugatti has done really is some acheivement, I really just dont like they way they got there.

I think we all agree though that what Dennis said is stupid. A Veyron ,while not the technical marvel his F1 was when it was launched 20 years ago, is a long way removed from a pile of junk.

VolvoMan

I am by no means into supercars. In fact, I think they are an extravagance. I do, however, think the Veyron is a hideously ugly car with little or no engineering innovation compared to the McLaren F1. I mean, anyone can strap four turbos to a high capacity engine and make it do 250 mph. It's just money needed to make it work, that's all.

Regarding the new McLaren, I don't think it's a bad looking car. It is certainly far from offensive looking and does have some very appealing lines.

af_thefragile

I'ld have the Ferrari 458 over the new Mclaren anyday.
Much better looking and I'ld say its going to be a better car to drive as well.

Tea 1000

Saab Ed wrote: »

Thats nonsense, they were nearly 20 years apart.

The F1 is still a far bigger technical acheivment than the Bugatti ever will be. The Bugatti is brute force, the F1 is pure technical innovation.


Every car in the world ( including 1000 bhp Skylines ) would be quicker and reliable if they had a million billion of money to spend on their indefinite development. An aeroplane will do 400 kmh in a straight line but just like a Veyron it wont look much cop compared to a true super car going around a bend

They are closer to 10 years apart, the F1 came out in late 1994, the Veyron in around late 2005.
And it's pointless to say "if another company did this". The fact remains that Bugatti are the only ones who actually did. The new Nissan GTR can do 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds or something like that, but only 4 times... after that Nissan won't cover your blown gearbox under warranty! I'd rather my GTR did 0-60 in 4.2 seconds all day every day.
The Veyron isn't slow either. It's quicker around the Top Gear track than a Porsche Carrera GT or a GTR, which slashed most supercars. I know the price difference etc, but it's not slow!
And I don't think the F1 was the technical marvel that you all claim it to be. BMW built an excellent engine, the engine bay was lined with gold not because someone discovered that technically it's the best, but because it was known by everyone that it was the best and they had a blank cheque. The chassis was excellent, and the driving position was an inspired choice, Gordon Murray's, but nothing really technically brilliant about it in the break-through sense, it didn't pioneer anything, just made everything better.