I know it’s just past Thanksgiving, but I hope you still have some mental space to be thankful, because there’s something that just happened about which you should be very thankful. That something is that my Autopian co-founder David Tracy and I just had a long, largely pointless argument about the worth of the Bugatti Veyron, and you did not have to be a part of it. It went on and on, and somehow you were spared the irritating tedium of two insufferable dorks carping at each other. So be thankful. But, not too thankful, because unfortunately for you and every other literate human (or suitably enhanced non-human animal) with the misfortune to be reading this, I am now going to relay the contents of this debate, right here, right now. You’re going to have to think about the at least $2 million dollar Veyron, and you’re going to have to decide if it’s an engineering marvel worth universal admiration or a useless stunt that, really, just doesn’t matter.
Also, I guess I should mention that since I’m the one writing this post, this’ll be sorta biased, unless David comes in afterwards and adds a lot of editor’s notes. But I’ll convey his argument to the best of my – if not ability, then willingness – and include what he said in Slack, so you can see how woefully misguided he is for yourself.
Here’s my fundamental point: For all the attention and adoration and some other word that starts with “a” that the Veyron has gotten, it’s proven to be a car that just doesn’t really… matter. Let’s be honest, here: who really gives a shit about Veyrons? [Editor’s Note: I do. I consider it the greatest automotive engineering marvel of my lifetime. What it offered in 2005 was mind-numbingly advanced. Nothing came close. -DT]. Do you see people driving them or racing them or, hell, even really enjoying them in any significant way? Or are almost all of them just helping to anchor air-conditioned garages safely to the Earth?
Sure, there’s the Tax The Rich guy who whipped his around for YouTube views, and that looked fun, though I bet you could have had about as much fun doing that in a 280Z or a Lada or a Supra or a Civic, and then there was that guy who crashed his Veyron into a lake because he let a pelican drive, or something. So, that’s what, 2 out of 450 total cars. I mean, I’m sure there’s a few more out there people are actually using in engaging ways, but if they are, they’re keeping it very, very quiet.
Yes, the Bugatti Veyron was an absolute technological tour-de-force, or, as David worships, “a moonshot:”
And yes, David, I still rip on them. Because of course it was an engineering marvel and the first “production” car to hit 1,000 hp and be able to hit over 250 mph: when you have a company with the resources of the Volkswagen Group effectively firehosing money and engineering talent at a project, yeah, of course it’ll be “insanely tech-forward.”
And it was tech forward, of course, but let’s take a moment and think about this: did any of the hyper-advanced tech that went into the Veyron actually end up influencing automotive technology as a whole? Was it technologically influential? Are W16 engines a big thing now, with quad turbochargers and eight-titanium-piston brake calipers found on cars all across the automotive spectrum? How about ten separate radiators? No. Fuck no. Because all that stuff is absurdly expensive and complex, as you would expect of a no-limits engineering tech-wank like the Veyron.
Hell, this is a car that has to have $42,000 tires, and those tires, that are specially adhered to the wheels with glue, and that glue is only guaranteed to be good for 18 months at a time, so you have to change tires every year and a half whether you drive the car or not, which, again, most owners do not. And every three tire changes means you need new wheels. How is this good engineering?
Oh, and if you were somehow able to really appreciate all of that magical, fantastical engineering that enables the Veyron to be able to achieve its stellar, awe-inspiring top speed of 267.856 mph, you could only do so for 15 minutes, because that’s how long the tires last at that speed. Oh, but you don’t have to worry about exceeding that limit, because the Veyron will empty its gas tank in 12 minutes at that speed, anyway.
So, for all of this incredible engineering that makes David’s genitals engorge and sets his soul afire and makes him say things like this:
… after all of this, the sum total time that this machine can live up to its true potential is 12 minutes. Then you’re pushing it back down the dry lake bed or wherever the hell you actually tried doing this (you’d need at least 50 miles of open, straight road, remember), and doing the math in your head for how much you need to spend on new tires or when your next $21,000 oil change is.
This is an idiotic machine.
And I even mean this in the greater context of supercars, a whole category I can’t say I’m especially fond of. Compare the Veyron to an earlier supercar, the Porsche 959. The 959, built from 1986 to 1993, pioneered a huge array of technological developments that are still extremely relevant today, like computer-controlled all-wheel drive and suspension, sequential turbocharging, and essentially setting the template for modern performance cars to this very day. The Veyron didn’t do anything like that. It was a technological triumph, sure, but a fragile, isolated one, a Galapagos tortoise of achievement, a dead end that influenced nothing in the greater automotive world.
[Ed Note: To understand the Veyron, you have to understand the context:
The Bugatti Veyron – a technical masterpiece When the Bugatti Veyron was first announced at the end of the nineties, many people were sceptical that the basic parameters could ever work. With more than 1,000 PS, a top speed in excess of 400 km/h, acceleration from nought to one hundred in less than three seconds, the doubters thought it simply impossible to produce a super sports car with this level of performance while remaining controllable and drivable. But that’s not all. Bugatti had set the bar even higher with its intention to produce a comfortable road car that was suitable for everyday use. The development of the Veyron was one of the most significant technical challenges ever undertaken by the automotive industry. Bugatti engineers had to push the limits of physics and do things that had never been done before in automotive development.
It was an unbelievably achievement, that led to the VW group’s first carbon ceramic brakes, the world’s first seven-speed dual clutch transmission, the first use of titanium bolts in a production car, advancements in carbon fiber monocoque manufacturing (for a production car), etc. etc. It was an amazing moonshot that we should all appreciate. -DT].
Now, I know what David is going to say about my take on this, because he’s said it:
And, generally, David is right about this sort of thing. He’s a real engineer, he can appreciate engineering achievements on a level that I’m sure I can’t. But I can’t agree this time. I’m not ignorant of the astounding technical achievements of the Veyron: I just don’t care. Because why the fuck should I? It can go crazy fast for 12 minutes and then you have to spend fancy new car money to just get it maintained again, but even doing that is unlikely, because most owners are not qualified to drive it at 250+ mph, don’t have the room to do it, and as a result can never appreciate the result of all that engineering cost and effort. The vast majority of Veyrons just sit in climate-controlled garages, and maybe get driven at speeds your average Corolla can handle with aplomb to a local Cars and Coffee or whatever.
David said he would own a Veyron if he could. And I respect that. But, at the same time, I honestly think David would be better served by owning, say, a Bugatti Veyron that had been cut in half, lengthwise, so you could see all of the advanced engineering within. It could be something he displays proudly in the Contemplation Room of his mansion, and he can wheel up a chair and sit in front of it, pondering its mysteries and wonder. That’d be a good use of a Veyron, especially because he already has a car that gets driven about as much as the average Veyron does, only without the added benefit of being a nursery for newborn kittens:
The Average Veyron ownership experience really isn’t all that different from David’s ZJ ownership experience, right?
I respect and adore David, but I do not entertain any illusions that he will understand my complete, full-body eye-roll at the Veyron. I just can’t see the point of this sort of engineering exercise when the end result is something that’s so inaccessible and rarified that it may as well not even exist [Ed Note: OK, so I assume you have a problem with automakers spending loads on F1 cars that consumers can never own? I know, you’re going to say “but people can watch them race.” Well, people can watch the Veyron on Top Gear and other programs (the Veyron episodes are amazing), and they can even see them on the street! (I saw one in Miami once; it was awesome). -DT]. Maybe it was a moonshot, but at least the real moonshot had scientific and political value. The target of the actual moonshot was something in the sky that had figured massively in the dreams of humankind for millennia. The Apollo lunar landing program was a crucible that advanced computers, among other things, to the point where a whole computer revolution came directly afterwards.
The Veyron gave VW bragging rights, made Ferdinand Piëch feel cool, and gave some millionaires something new and exciting to tell the garage help to dust.
David does bring up one excellent point I should address, though:
The idea of saying “fuck it, let’s do it” and pulling off some sort of engineering feat is, absolutely, a wonderful thing. I too love that VW was once willing to do that! But I think they could have done that with much different, and much more interesting results.
Consider this: what if VW wanted to do some “fuck it, let’s do it” thing, but actually wanted to do something people could actually enjoy. Something that would actually affect people directly, bring something new and exciting into their lives? It could still be a technological marvel, too!
Here’s an idea: Volkswagen is actually the company that has produced more amphibious cars than any other company. Sure, it was a military vehicle, the Schwimmwagen, with over 15,000 built. The Amphicar, the next closest, only had 3,878 copies! So, what if VW’s moonshot was to make something like a Golf Cabrio-based amphibious car that would sell for, say, under $30,000? Pulling that off would be a hell of an achievement, it would get plenty of attention, be unique in the world (a mass-market affordable amphibious car you could buy easily at a major carmaker’s dealership) and, more importantly, could be accessible and enjoyable to really large numbers of people!
Amphibious cars may seem like a frivolous thing, but is it more absurd than building a handful of cars that can go 250+ mph for 12 minutes and that’s it? And costs millions of dollars and is devastatingly expensive to maintain? I don’t think so!
Look, as you can see, this argument is tearing us apart. We need all of you, the greatest collective automotive hive mind on the internet, to help settle this. Should I just shut up about the Veyron? Should David practice his Veyron-worship in the privacy of his own bathroom? I need your guidance here, before this turns ugly.
Bugatti Updates Its Logo In The Most Boring Way Possible
This Was The Biggest Change In Car Styling And You Probably Never Think About It Now
Sir, Your Certified Pre-Owned Bugatti Veyron Is Here
I find it beyond hilarious that this thing was made by a company literally called “the people’s car”. The Veyron should have stayed a one-off to prove VW’s engineering chops. sorry DT.
I seem to recall shortly before the Veyron hit production, someone published a series of criticisms Gordon Murray had about thr Veyron – effectively that it was needlessly complex because they made it so it had to be needlessly complex. But, it looks like he drove it for R&T at launch and loved it. So yes, stupid, brilliant, both.
Both of you make valid points, but if forced to pick, I’m siding with Jason. Technological innovation is fantastic, but if it’s not really influencing the development of cars for the “middle class” more than a decade later, it does come across as purely a dick-measuring contest rather than a noble enterprise (again, as opposed to landing on the moon, which, yes, was a dick-measuring contest but also directly tied to other technological innovations which impacted far more than just space travel).
I think you’re both right. On one hand, VW crafted perhaps the most exquisite machine for machinery’s sake that ever rolled on four wheels, and just a gorgeous thing besides – science meets art at the very highest level. On the other hand, they could have put the money into fixing the gremlins in their bread and butter production cars.
I think the Bugatti Veyron fully calls for equal amounts of praise and admiration, and scorn and ridicule. I love it. I hate it. I’m still glad it exists, though.
There are tons of exercises in excess because there’s a market for it. People drive F-650s to Walmart, Rezvani exists, Veblen goods, superyachts, toy hauler backup yachts, etc. Moncler jackets and high fashion aren’t worth what they cost in materials. If this kind of thing is going to exist anyway, why not have a car that costs $2M because of what went into it (ten radiators, 16 cylinders, the absolute limit of rolling stock technology) and is genuinely impressive, not because there’s one of 12 and it’s a “bespoke” body style.
Hear, hear. I’m less impressed by expensive for expensive’s sake. It’s the bonkers engineering that’s the most fun about the high-end stuff, and the Veyron was the absolute pinnacle of just that. It was a completely untouchable engineering high point for years!
I love it when automakers push some boundaries.
Bad news – Veyron wiper blades are 4k to change. Good news – Veyron will never see a rainy day.
Team JT
Are you guys kidding? This thing is, was and will always be freaking amazing! It was never intended to be anything other than the VW group showing how much money they had and what they could build with it. OF COURSE it’s stupid. Most performance cars are never utilized for what they can actually do, outside of crashing into a tree/car/person outside of the coffee and cars event.
The concept of a car that can go 250mph and costs $2 million is absurd, even obscene. But who dreams of getting rich enough to buy a Jetta? Nobody. It’s an aspirational car, an idea of what can be accomplished if cost is not a consideration. It’s a Rolex when a Timex is sufficient.
But even if I had the money I would never buy one. I’ve had the opportunity over the years to buy the big house, vacation home, etc. I’ll give my excess money to my kids assuming I still have any when I die. The only time I exceed 150mph is on a plane. My old SVO does 0-60 in about 3.5 seconds and that is plenty fast for me.
“But who dreams of getting rich enough to buy a Jetta? Nobody.”
The worldwide median per-capita household income is only $2,920 per year so pretty much everybody.
I didn’t pay all that much attention when it came out, but I have to admit – Top Gear easily sold me on it’s absolutely wonderful ridiculousness, thus placing me firmly in DT’s engineering marvel camp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0PgyPWE3o
The Bugatti may be an engineering marvel, but only in packaging all those systems to fit into the envelope of its body. Really, 10 radiators?!?! It’s not advancing technology, but just using what was available. Koenigsegg is making outrageous hyper cars, but trying to do so with new answers to improve the automobile. VW absolutely could have done that.
Its all about the trickledown. The bank account draining technology of the Veyron trickled down to the Phaeton, the Toureg and every other VW in the line.
You two aren’t actually in disagreement with each other – you’re just talking past each other.
David says that the Veyron is amazing and it is, but that doesn’t preclude it from being stupid. Things can be both amazing and stupid. The Veyron is the 185-ton Panzer VIII Maus of the automotive world.
Jason is saying that the Veryon is stupid and it is. But being stupid doesn’t preclude it from being amazing. The Veyron is the Big Mouth Billy Bass of the automotive world.
And yes, it is incongruous that VW should be the company to use a huge amount of resources building this elite car. I like Jason’s idea about them building a world-beating amphibious vehicle instead. A car that the average person could use. A “people’s car”, if you will.
I’m with most of the comments here…it’s both. The fact that VW developed a 250 MPH, 16 cylinder car, that can *technically* be driven every day is cool as hell, and as enthusiasts we are by nature appreciators of the absurd. There are countless examples…Hellcats are dumb, impractical, and can’t be enjoyed safely on the street, and yet we still love them. We all love the RS6 Avant/AMG wagons and they’re overweight, gas guzzling, and a form factor that is not necessarily conducive to performance by nature. We could do this all night, and we often do!
However, the Veyron is also a grotesque display of vanity, conspicuous consumption, excess, and I’ve seen many cite it as the beginning of the end for performance cars. It essentially created an entire new class of dick measuring devices for the top .01% and demonstrated that enough power and engineering can overcome weight, which I’d argue is still trickling down to to this day.
It was also one of the earlier examples of a super/hyper car that was automatic only and emphasized luxury…if you look at a lot of other crazy cars from the era (Carrera GT, Ford GT, Saleen S7, Lamborghinis, the Zonda, etc) manual gearboxes were still largely the default, the cars were still essentially analog, and it took skill to be able to handle them. They demanded respect and weren’t for the faint of heart…whereas anyone can get behind the wheel of a Veyron and more or less be fine.
I’m also with Torch in that I don’t give a flying fuck about hypercars. At a certain point they all blend together, 99% of them are never driven at anywhere near their capabilities, most are mothballed, and the only people who have the means to acquire them are undoubtedly unethical shitbags. Consider this your reminder than no one becomes a billionaire by being a good person.
At the end of the day, the Veyron is both an engineering marvel and an incredibly stupid exercise in excess.
Well said!
This car is a marvelous achievement and yet is as ridiculous as they come. Would I want to own one? No. Would I like to sit next to it and bask in the sound of that mad, mad W16 idling? Yes. Yes, I would.
In a world where the Hummer / H2 / H3 exist, I can cut a little slack for something truly impressive.
Don’t be a hater. That way lies the dark side.
“Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not They Could, They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should” – Albert Einstein
“Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not They Could, They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should” –
Albert EinsteinJeff Goldblum as Dr. Ian MalcomFTFY
I know noting “Einstein said this” was/is the old “social media will rot your brain” – Abe Lincoln joke 😉
Stuff like the Veyron is boring. Yes, if you are basically operating without constraints, you can do some amazing things. Imagine my surprise.
It’s when you apply constraints that things get interesting. I remember going on a homes tour where every architect in town nominated one project for inclusion. These were mostly (but not exclusively) rich-people houses, and most of them were just boring. Very nice. Exceedingly nice. But they didn’t need or attempt to solve any interesting problems. Some of them had dumb features like a room with a leather floor, because when you’ve got ridiculous amounts of money, that must seem like a reasonable material for a floor.
VW also built the XL1, which was an interesting technical accomplishment that might have more relevance to normal people, but I haven’t seen a lot of obvious knock-on effects from it. Which is too bad.
So I guess what I am saying is that, although I am entirely on your side here Jason, you should shut up about the Veyron because it is boring.
In the 1980’s, the economic situation in Japan was growing at such a rate that it became economically possible to start building extreme and boutique cars. The so called ‘Bubble Cars’.
The Veyron is an example of a 2000’s ‘Bubble Car’, built on an economic principle of ‘the arrow always goes up’, that popped in 2008.
So Jason, in a way, you repeatedly run into deer with a version of a Bugatti Veyron.
Seems like a lot of us having the same thoughts!
Both. For the people making it, it was all about pushing boundaries. Anyone buying one however was just showing off.
The Veyron is both the apex and the nadir.
It is the nadir of hubris because it didn’t make money, nor did it really change the automotive world. Nothing really has trickled down, nor is it likely to.
However, it is the apex of gasoline powered vehicles. Sure, a land speed car is faster, but you can’t drive it on the street. Other cars may handle better and get better gas mileage, but they can’t do what a Veyron can as far as pure speed.
It is, and with the trend toward hybrids and electric cars, it will probably always will be the fastest, street legal, gasoline only powered automobile.
The apex.
The Veyron.
Yet again, another article that could use a POLL at the bottom!!!
☐ Stunning
☐ Stupid
☑ Both!!!
Exactly. Sometimes the obvious answer, really is obvious.
The Veyron is a technological marvel, and a huge crock of wasteful rich folk shit all at the same time.
Both.
It was a 1,000+ horsepower W16-engined AWD monstrousity that could exceed 250 mph. That in and of itself is marvelous.
But it was also designed much more for style than function, it is a lardass that had the mass and aero drag of a large pickup truck, and was designed primarily as a low-volume toy exclusive to rich people and slathered with all kinds of BS luxury features that are not only more things to go wrong and eat money but also detract greatly from its performance potential thanks to all of the added mass.
As it was, the Veyron didn’t interest me much beyond its power and top speed, and if I were a man of means, I’d still have zero desire to own one.
Imagine if this was a svelte, slippery, lightweight, narrow, agile little thing, but with that same engine and without all the extraneous crap. An actual minimally road-legal race car, instead of a luxury car pretending to be a race car. AND most importantly, mass produced to as much volume as the market would bear in order to get the cost down(perhaps have 4-cylinder and V8 variants on offer to allow this), so that perhaps it might be aspirational to people of more modest means(think Corvette, but smaller, more narrow, lighter, more aerodynamically slippery, and with all that W16’s power). Take inspiration from the 1930s Auto Union streamliners regarding drag, and say screw it to styling in order to get there. THAT would have been a lot more interesting, because fuck 250 mph, 300 mph might have been in reach, regardless of the risk of getting airborne on the way there.
What you’re describing sounds a Loy more like Gordon Murray’ Rocket LCC and yes I agree That would certainly be a hell of a lot more fun to drive (even money no object) than a Veyron…
https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/a31445563/gordon-murrays-ultralight-lcc-rocket-is-just-about-perfect/
The Rocket is definitely light, but it does not have the aero I’m looking for. Think more Panhard CD Peugeot 66C LeMans race car regarding that aspect, except with JUST ENOUGH downforce not to take off into the air at speed, but no more, as more downforce inevitably adds more drag.
The Panhard CD Peugeot 66C is beautiful and extremely aerodynamic. It is puzzling why the majority of race cars aren’t similarly aerodynamic, as the advantages should be self evident; i.e. combination of greater speed and fuel efficiency, leads to a positive snowball effect… the more aero a race car can be, the faster it can go with less hp, less hp means a smaller more efficient engine, smaller engine means everything can be lighter, everything lighter means better handling….
The tradeoff is downforce. Obnoxiously large wings, scoops, vents, and spoilers all conspire to help press the car toward the ground more, allowing the tires to exert more grip. This allows them to go faster through the corners at high speeds. The higher the speed, the greater the downforce.
What is puzzling is that street-legal cars sold to consumers ignore this in favor not for downforce, but for corporate styling trends(such as the current fads of oversized grilles, oversized wheels, fake vents, plastic cladding, ect.). We should have small Miata-like sports cars and 4-cylinder sedans with Cd values around 0.15 getting 70+ mpg highway, and V8 musclecars with similar Cd values getting 40+ mpg highway.
True (about downforce in racing), which IS of course important, however it could be active & downforce bits could be deployed only where needed* i.e. corners
*race rules permitting of course
My life goal in one sentence: Buy a supercar and drive it like an Altima.
That’s why I love Doug DeMuro’s Ford GT. He’s driving it to the grocery store, around town, even to the point of having it break down on random side streets where he’s at least able to parallel park it so he can try to fix it. Makes me happy to see someone use their exotic as primarily a car.
The Veyron is the Kerbal Space Program equivalent of JFK’s moon speech.
Just remember that the Veyron had a very different Part 2 in the SuperSport. The changes were monstrous, and their character, handling, response — EVERYTHING is so very different. In particular the handling. It’s genuinely Lotus-esque despite the weight!
I’m not gonna take sides here, but I’ll mention that my Opa helped design the Beetle, so I have opinions about VW. I also have some land on a pond in Maine (the rest of you folks would call this a lake), and the idea of driving to it, driving INTO it, sitting on the hood (or wherever) out in the sun, swimming for a bit, and driving back home? I’d love a good modern schwimmwagen.
I think you are both equally correct. This is okay and normal.
This car exists because it needed to exist at that time and moment. A new Veyron already exists, just in a different name and form. Both emotions and reactions are correct because that is the whole point of things like this.
At this point, I’d prefer this car exist versus not exist. I can’t think of a point when I would NOT want this car to exist, actually. I agree it is pointless and a waste, but it makes me happy as an engineer that it does exist.
Dang, you nailed my thoughts exactly and said them better than I would have. Well done.
Thanks!
You raise an interesting question – is there any car out there that we’d rather didn’t exist?
Seems like we get something useful if not cool out of every car, even if it’s only lessons about what automotive failure looks like.
YES, there are cars we’d rather didn’t exist. “rather didn’t exist” is an opinion driven by emotion. Remember what torch always says, “buying a car is an emotional operation”. Even if we learn by a shitty failure, doesn’t mean it should have existed. And, there are good cars that I’d rather not exist, I suppose. I’m rambling. But, yeah, I think there is. You??
Edit:
A car I’d rather not exist:
Nissan Rogue. Hate them, wish they didn’t exist. Plenty of other options.
You may have the correct autopian answer there…pure copycats that do nothing better than others but price. With “nothing” encompassing a wide variety of attributes.
That might explain why we don’t tend to absolutely hate all malaise-era domestics here.
The Rougue Acrively does at least 1 thing Much worse than it’s competition… I have heard the cvt transmission used it them is made out of tissue paper and unicorn facts and for even cheap rebuilt units are expensive so often the Trans. failing mechanically totals the car…
YES! Very! Much! THIS!
While I dislike the Rogue, my animosity is actually on the other end of the price scale – luxury “coupe” SUVs and CUVs like the X6, GLE Coupe, and RR Evoque Coupe (and others I can’t recall off the top of my head). They do nothing better than their normal stablemates and simply have no reason to exist. At least the Rogue, as craptastic as it is, I can credit being cheap, which has a utility all its own.
I begrudgingly agree that it does have utility of being cheap. But, I’d rather it not exist.
Hummer H2
I’d rather these not exist.
Same. H3, too. Just…nah. Stop trying to make Hummers happen after the H1. They’re just harbingers of the bad times.
Bro dozers. Especially the coal rolling and squatting variety.
I’d rather these not exist times ten. OH, and it’s called the Carolina squat, as fresh and dumb as it looks, it does have a proper name that deserves respect. :p
I know. I just figured I’d cover all the bases.