Looks TVR, rear is nice looking, except most rear bit, tail is kind of pushed in, that is fault, but rest of rear looks nice. I don't like door area.
4wd is offering too many advantages to not like from it, also it is extreamly fun if it is done properly, not like those girly fwd feeling systems, yuck.
Just saw pic from front, awful ugly that is, rear is defineatly best section in that car, imo.
Personally it looks like another lump of carbon fibre that still somehow manages to weigh 1600kg with all the luxury equipment and ridiculously large engine shoved in it. Of course neither the Buggatti or the Fighter will be that fast round a track for what they are, I'd put my money on them both being beaten by an F1.
Bristol puzzles me, I don't think I have ever seen modern Bristol, I guess it's another play thing of a super rich businessman like Ascari.
its like they couldn't come up with a design, so they took a little covertte, added a pinch of porsche, and mixed it all up with 2tsp of viper which makes a Corvische. but that's too odd of a name, so they called it the fighter t.
You're both right and wrong. it's true that the Veyron was built around strict artificial constraints--1000 BHP, 400 kmh (250 mph), and the body design was decided even before it was shown to the public--it was always going to look like that.
However, the comparison to the Mclaren is erroneous. The Mclaren with no rear wing had major rear downforce problems--the race versions all had large rear wings which cut back on top speed significantly. Granted, the Veyron does the same thing, with its multiple aero setups built into the car. But one should not forget that the Veyron is electronically LIMITED to 400 km/h, while the Mclaren was physically incapable of going faster than this. Additionally, the Veyron can hit that speed even with the drag of AWD, compared to the Mclaren's RWD. All reviews I've read say the Veyron handles significantly better than the McLaren, especially at high speed. The guy who designed the Mclaren has himself been quoted as impressed with the Veyron, despite original skepticism.
Look at the Koenigsegg CCX--it can also go around 400 km/h, and with less power than a Veyron, but only without a rear wing. The handling was so atrocious, it's the only car The Stig from Top Gear has ever crashed. Koenigsegg took it back, slapped a wing on, and it blitzed the track record--but the wing dropped top speed by about 75 Km/h. The McLaren and Koenigsegg both only make their top speeds by seriously sacrificing handling.
At any rate, I'm still looking forward to the Bristol. That slippery body will be nice, as will light weight--with the listed stats, I'll believe 270 mph, especially with only RWD. But I'm skeptical of what the handling will be like--front-engined, RWD, questionable downforce. I'm curious to see how it really turns out.
The Veyron is exactly like that too. It has a "top speed mode" where it changes the aero characteristics and turning the wheel more than a certain angle makes the car apply the brakes. in short, it goes 400Kph only in a more-or-less straight line.
plus, the CCX's handling was not 'atrocious'. Not very smart of you, to say this. For example, the stig spun the carrera GT numerous times (As reported by clarkson) trying to get fast around a corner, pretty much what happened with the CCX. And the GT *has* a rear spoiler. Most (if not all) mid engine cars behave like this. especially feather-weight class cars with power ratings flirting with 4 figures.
I mentioned the Veyron's low-downforce mode. It still handles better at high speed than the Mclaren (According to Clarkson, anyway).
The CCX, with spoiler, gained 3 seconds of time on a 1:20 lap. That's as much as the time difference between the stock CCX and the original Koenigsegg. The stock CCX was slower than the Porsche Carrera GT, despite a 200 HP and 400 lb. advantage. The loss of traction in the high speed turn was only doubtfully influenced by the mid-engined configuration--yes, it decreases moment of inertia, promoting spins, but the Stig was making a very gentle turn at the time and I don't think rotational inertia had anything to do with it.
Well, you can draw your own conclusions. IMHO, the CCX's real top speed is the one with the wing, a claimed 230 MPH. Which is comparable to the Veyron's top speed in "handling mode" (and, incidentally, roughly as fast as the Mclaren F1 LM, which has a wing as well, though its the slowest of the three at a claimed 225). Except you can turn handling mode off, while the wing is permanent. And the Veyron has AWD.
Looks perfect for drop the kids up at school and picking up the shopping.
Aside from the very concept and futuristic styling the design principles behind it seem ideal for race a car. Kind of a Formula/Coupe hybrid. Will be the ultimate track day tool for sure. Kinda wasted on the road though.
There are very few cars that actually look _very good_. Some look ok at best, most look just bad. I guess it's a design/marketing thing. Cars that catch your eye sell better than just a good looking cars. Just look at the "new" Porsche or the latest supercars, or latest the daily drivers. None of them look good.
I keep dreaming about me going to Drag Competitions and sitting down, watching drag cars and then suddenly the guy who arranged the competition, calls my name and asks me to go to him. Then he asks me, would i like to drive 2000 hp drag car and then i walk to car and wave my hand to everybody and sit into car, start the engine...do some burnout.."christmas tree" lights will appear AND THEN i noticed that i ONLY dreamed...
