I swear to god I have no relation to this dude... though I have made many of these points before
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/has-the-supercar-become-less-super-790795524 (http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/has-the-supercar-become-less-super-790795524)
QuoteWhat the world needs is a thick rimmed glasses wearing, indie loving, Starbucks Coffee drinking hipster of a company to release a car that refuses to conform to the mainstream.
This just confirms it. You're a Jalopnik elitist, automotive hipster :lol:
But seriously, the whole article was about being distinctive. And the idea is that these cars aren't distinctive because they're all so great. Great performance, presumably great to drive (and I hold to that until someone drives the damn things and tells me they're awful. They're too outrageous to assume otherwise). I don't want a car that's less enjoyable in order to be more distinctive. Greatness isn't something that should be compromised just to be different. Who cares how distinct it is?
The first comment summed up my thoughts pretty well:
QuoteI wholeheartedly disagree with you.
These crazy new cars (LaFerrari, P1, 918, etc) can go crazy fast speed, (like 0-100 in under 7 seconds). They haven't even been available yet for proper review. Maybe it's cause you haven't driven a supercar (or maybe you have). Not even those cars, 458's and aventadors. Those cars are breathtaking in the flesh, eargasmic noises, and scary quick.
If you think those cars are getting boring, then you have lost the way of being a gearhead.
A tesla is an amazing car, but they aren't what make my gentleman parts fizzy. They are great, and I am happy that Tesla is gaining momentum. But it's not what I aspire to have.
Give me an Aventador in Matte Black, let me shoot some flames from that huge elephant-leg sized exhaust, and let me hear that glorious V12 sing.
When you become more concerned with how distinctive a car is, and how it's perceived, than what it actually brings to the table, I think you've lost the way of being a gear head. I don't understand the mindset that this has already been done before. NOTHING like this round of hypercars has been done before. I don't know what you expect them to do. A flying car?
Top Gear is always on about this shit too, at least when it comes to Lambos. Lamborghini should build something RWD with 700 hp and swing axles to satisfy the "Lamborghini should be mental" crowd.
Well, a supercar is pretty much a car that's at a whole other level in xyz category. The new round of electro/hybrid/whatever cars from Ferarri, Porsche, and McLaren are the very definition of a supercar. Maybe having this many spectacularly good cars ruins some of the fun and novelty, but, it doesn't make them any less super. What I think will happen, however, is we will start wanting super status in other areas. The Model S that the original article refers could very well lead to a different kind of supercar that doesn't aim to get the quickest 0-60 time and pull the highest Gs but is still very much an incredible machine in other areas.
Lamborghini
(http://uncrate.com/p/2010/10/lamborghini-tractors-xl.jpg)
H&H™
Quote from: MrH on July 15, 2013, 05:50:33 PM
This just confirms it. You're a Jalopnik elitist, automotive hipster :lol:
But seriously, the whole article was about being distinctive. And the idea is that these cars aren't distinctive because they're all so great. Great performance, presumably great to drive (and I hold to that until someone drives the damn things and tells me they're awful. They're too outrageous to assume otherwise). I don't want a car that's less enjoyable in order to be more distinctive. Greatness isn't something that should be compromised just to be different. Who cares how distinct it is?
The first comment summed up my thoughts pretty well:
When you become more concerned with how distinctive a car is, and how it's perceived, than what it actually brings to the table, I think you've lost the way of being a gear head. I don't understand the mindset that this has already been done before. NOTHING like this round of hypercars has been done before. I don't know what you expect them to do. A flying car?
Being a gear head isn't just limited to being a technology and performance freak as you are trying to paint it. There's way more to automotive enthusiasm than that. Again there's a reason you bought your car instead of an EVO or whatever is the fastest + most advanced car you could have got for the same money. Plus nobody said this has been done before. Obviously there haven't been any hybrid supercars before :rolleyes:
But the fact that 3 manufacturers came up with basically the same car in a vacuum speaks to what I have been trying (and failing) to speak to. Back in the days supercars and cars in general were more reflective of their respective companies' philosophies and histories. You had the brutal F40 alongside the high tech Teutonic 959 and the flamboyant Countach. The cars were different because the goals and mindsets behind the cars were different. Now the only things that matter are lap times, performance figures and emissions. Each of the 3 supercars are essentially interchangeable in looks, componentry and concept. I get the value in performance and innovation and I am not knocking these cars for that... they are great technological achievements. But is it so weird or "hipster" to want a car to be more than that?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 15, 2013, 07:06:30 PM
Being a gear head isn't just limited to being a technology and performance freak as you are trying to paint it. There's way more to automotive enthusiasm than that. Again there's a reason you bought your car instead of an EVO or whatever is the fastest + most advanced car you could have got for the same money. Plus nobody said this has been done before. Obviously there haven't been any hybrid supercars before :rolleyes:
But the fact that 3 manufacturers came up with basically the same car in a vacuum speaks to what I have been trying (and failing) to speak to. Back in the days supercars and cars in general were more reflective of their respective companies' philosophies and histories. You had the brutal F40 alongside the high tech Teutonic 959 and the flamboyant Countach. The cars were different because the goals and mindsets behind the cars were different. Now the only things that matter are lap times, performance figures and emissions. Each of the 3 supercars are essentially interchangeable in looks, componentry and concept. I get the value in performance and innovation and I am not knocking these cars for that... they are great technological achievements. But is it so weird or "hipster" to want a car to be more than that?
I guess that's where we differ. I view all three to be pretty distinct. It's a mad rush to combine lightweight savings, with some sort of way to store power. The fact the engineering kind of converged just gives credit to the design IMO. Porsche has a very Germanic approach. The engine can run by itself. It can run in complete electric mode. It can run combined. How it combines power is a crazy achievement to make the most efficient car ever. The Ferrari is F1 to the extreme. McLaren is similar, but had a HUGE focus on it's awesome hydraulic cross linking suspension and active aero dynamics.
I guess when two of the players come from F1 backgrounds, there's bound to be some similarity there. But they're only making a handful of these cars a year. There's a lot of variety in the super car range. The Aventador is different from turbo or GT3 911s, R8s, Vipers, Corvette ZR1s, etc.
Since I'll never get to drive any of the 3 crazy cars (Laferrari, P1, 918), I have to say on paper they look very similar. Crazy engine with some sort of hybrid setup.
I kinda agree with Sporty on this one. I definitely don't think those cars will be boring to drive or that they aren't supercars, but to me they aren't something I'd like to hang up on my wall and drool over like the F40 or Miura. Something about these new supercars just doesn't do it for me. The last supercars that I really, really wanted were the Zonda and CCX. I guess if I wanted a new supercar now, I'd get the Noble M600, but even that doesn't get me as excited as the old M12 GTO 3R did.
I'm kind of losing interest in the new generation of supercars tbh.
FWIW, every auto journalist that has driven the pre-production 918s say it's weird. Very strange sensations. Go watch Chris Harris' video. Hopefully Porsche takes the strangeness out of it for production.
The newest crop of hypercars are unbelievable and I really wonder where they go from here. I mean where CAN they go? I can't wait to see track times for these cars, because tehy're going to obliterate everything that came before them. They truly are impressive machines.....but, I don't want one. I would rather have an Audi R8 V8, Cayman S, or Jaguar F-Type than any of them.
Quote from: thecarnut on July 15, 2013, 09:19:46 PM
Since I'll never get to drive any of the 3 crazy cars (Laferrari, P1, 918), I have to say on paper they look very similar. Crazy engine with some sort of hybrid setup.
I kinda agree with Sporty on this one. I definitely don't think those cars will be boring to drive or that they aren't supercars, but to me they aren't something I'd like to hang up on my wall and drool over like the F40 or Miura. Something about these new supercars just doesn't do it for me. The last supercars that I really, really wanted were the Zonda and CCX. I guess if I wanted a new supercar now, I'd get the Noble M600, but even that doesn't get me as excited as the old M12 GTO 3R did.
I'm kind of losing interest in the new generation of supercars tbh.
Ever since the power levels started going over 700 hp, I've started losing interest in them....and that makes me an unthusiast according to the BRZ driver.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 15, 2013, 09:50:15 PM
Ever since the power levels started going over 700 hp, I've started losing interest in them....and that makes me an unthusiast according to the BRZ driver.
I know you're not talking about me, but the only thing I had an issue with was that you said they'd be boring on the street, which I don't think they'll be. I just don't really like them, regardless.
I'm kind of becoming more and more interested in Caterhams. I'd rather have that low power, featherweight combo than the ridiculous power of these super cars.
Supercars are for most of us adolescent fantasies. Its perfect normal for adolescent fantasies to seem less appealing as you become more of an adult.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 15, 2013, 10:22:41 PM
Supercars are for most of us adolescent fantasies. Its perfect normal for adolescent fantasies to seem less appealing as you become more of an adult.
But at the same time, I want a car like the Daytona more than ever.
Supercars haven't really appealed to me since before the Enzo. One the Veyron hit 315243 MPH, and I realized that I was unlikely to ever go that fast on the ground myself, I pretty much lost interest entirely.
Quote from: Rupert on July 16, 2013, 01:42:01 AM
Supercars haven't really appealed to me since before the Enzo. One the Veyron hit 315243 MPH, and I realized that I was unlikely to ever go that fast on the ground myself, I pretty much lost interest entirely.
And there is only one track on the planet where the Veyron can hit Vmax.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 15, 2013, 10:22:41 PM
Supercars are for most of us adolescent fantasies. Its perfect normal for adolescent fantasies to seem less appealing as you become more of an adult.
Naw I still have wet dreams about cars like the F1 & F40.
Quote from: MrH on July 15, 2013, 08:57:21 PM
I guess that's where we differ. I view all three to be pretty distinct. It's a mad rush to combine lightweight savings, with some sort of way to store power. The fact the engineering kind of converged just gives credit to the design IMO. Porsche has a very Germanic approach. The engine can run by itself. It can run in complete electric mode. It can run combined. How it combines power is a crazy achievement to make the most efficient car ever. The Ferrari is F1 to the extreme. McLaren is similar, but had a HUGE focus on it's awesome hydraulic cross linking suspension and active aero dynamics.
These distinctions are only important to geeks and engineers. At the end of the day they are all mid engine hybrids. Much more similar than say, the F40, 959, Countach and F1 by any metrics- performance, design, objective, philosophy etc. It's like they were bound by rules of a racing class. But the rules came from bean counters, regulators and focus groups. For example the P1's cross link suspension only makes sense as it is a spin off of the MP4-12C which already had that technology. That's a beancounter's delight presented as an innovation.
Quote from: MrH on July 15, 2013, 08:57:21 PMI guess when two of the players come from F1 backgrounds, there's bound to be some similarity there. But they're only making a handful of these cars a year. There's a lot of variety in the super car range. The Aventador is different from turbo or GT3 911s, R8s, Vipers, Corvette ZR1s, etc.
In that second tier I suppose, but even then there's homogeneity... Porsche made the 911 Turbo a RR GT-R when the GT-R layeth the performance figure smacketh downeth... ZR1 & Viper put down exactly the same numbers... etc...
In any case these companies have all been around for a while, all been involved in racing from day 1 and have made distinctive flagships before. Something has changed and the fact that these companies all basically came up with the same thing in their respective "vacuums" speaks to that.
Quote from: thecarnut on July 15, 2013, 10:00:42 PM
I know you're not talking about me, but the only thing I had an issue with was that you said they'd be boring on the street, which I don't think they'll be. I just don't really like them, regardless.
I'm kind of becoming more and more interested in Caterhams. I'd rather have that low power, featherweight combo than the ridiculous power of these super cars.
Yea I used to hate cars like the Cateram and Ariel Atom simply because I thought they were kind of ugly. But now I see beauty in their simplicity. I hope that is where performance cars are headed, honestly.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 16, 2013, 08:20:29 AM
Yea I used to hate cars like the Cateram and Ariel Atom simply because I thought they were kind of ugly. But now I see beauty in their simplicity. I hope that is where performance cars are headed, honestly.
Cars like that will be banned when we're all in autonomobiles.
I fell out of interest in supercars about the time the F-50 came out. I was a massive fan of the F-40 back in the day... then it kinda waned from there. At that point the pony cars peaked my interest until about 2003 when I started falling for small, lightweight cars.
Yeah, I mean who would want a new Lambo when a clapped out Honda *feels* fast?
feels fast > going fast.
Quote from: S204STi on July 16, 2013, 11:50:35 AM
Yeah, I mean who would want a new Lambo when a clapped out Honda *feels* fast?
This has nothing to do with anything said in this thread and isn't an accurate depiction of anything implied here. You get a participation medal for trying though.
Modern supercars are like military jets for me. I know an F-22 will blow the shit out of anything in the 60's-80's but it really it's something I like to look at all that much. I'm much more a fan of the stuff made a long time ago like the F-105 or F-4. So I know a modern cars are much "better" then the old ones but I like the 355 or F-40 way more then anything made today.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 16, 2013, 01:33:05 PM
This has nothing to do with anything said in this thread and isn't an accurate depiction of anything implied here. You get a participation medal for trying though.
umad
It actually has everything to do with the mindset behind posting this. You're an automotive Luddite, progress and/or speed scares, you admit it.
Quote from: S204STi on July 16, 2013, 02:20:34 PM
It actually has everything to do with the mindset behind posting this. You're an automotive Luddite, progress and/or speed scares, you admit it.
I think it's more of the fact that all cars are progressing to the same thing is what his point is. Which I do agree with.
Quote from: S204STi on July 16, 2013, 02:20:34 PM
It actually has everything to do with the mindset behind posting this. You're an automotive Luddite, progress and/or speed scares, you admit it.
Naw, not at all actually. Lol @ me being scared of speed. And I have been a vocal proponent for many technologies- ask Raza. I will give you a gold star in addition to your medal for the extra effort though, you are going the extra mile.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 16, 2013, 02:52:38 PM
Naw, not at all actually. Lol @ me being scared of speed. And I have been a vocal proponent for many technologies- ask Raza. I will give you a gold star in addition to your medal for the extra effort though, you are going the extra mile.
StillMAD
Yeah, progress is such a problem in the automotive industry. Having more good options to choose from is terrible.
Sometimes I wonder if I'm even on a car forum anymore.
(http://blogs.slj.com/afuse8production/files/2012/05/LittleWomen20.jpg)
SPEED > SPEED
Quote from: S204STi on July 16, 2013, 03:03:25 PM
StillMAD
Yeah, progress is such a problem in the automotive industry. Having more good options to choose from is terrible.
3 supercars that are basically the same car = more options? :huh:
It's true, Sporty loves tech. Stability control (which I don't mind if it can be turned off), KERS for street cars, autonomous cars, and so on.
You'd imagine this is an old guard versus new generation thing. But it isn't a straight line by age. Sure, Craig and Josh are both a bit older, but Sporty and I are about the same age (though older than many regular posters here), but even Rags has expressed disinterest in the newest generation of supercars. I myself started to lose interest around the time of the Enzo.
Cars are more capable than ever, that much is indisputable. Whether that by default makes them more desirable than ever is where there seems to be a rift. Some, it seems, believe that a car enthusiast must love the newest and fastest thing without fail, which is not to say that there aren't those who only value the old and romanticized.
Why the idea of preferring one or the other incenses either group so is what intrigues me. Why so bothered by those who don't like these new computers on wheels? It's funny, I can draw another watch parallel here. There's a "small watch" crowd that seems to hate that people wear watches over 38mm. It's not enough that they simply buy and wear what they like, they demand that others do as they would do as well. I just don't get it.
I don't get it either Raza.
I have no problem either way. Just trolling sporty, since this is remarkably similar to his usual tirades about fast cars sucking, etc.
Quote from: S204STi on July 16, 2013, 06:30:45 PM
I have no problem either way. Just trolling sporty, since this is remarkably similar to his usual tirades about fast cars sucking, etc.
You're still angry I said a turbo BRZ was a bad idea (it still is)
Quote from: thecarnut on July 15, 2013, 09:19:46 PM
Since I'll never get to drive any of the 3 crazy cars (Laferrari, P1, 918), I have to say on paper they look very similar. Crazy engine with some sort of hybrid setup.
I kinda agree with Sporty on this one. I definitely don't think those cars will be boring to drive or that they aren't supercars, but to me they aren't something I'd like to hang up on my wall and drool over like the F40 or Miura. Something about these new supercars just doesn't do it for me. The last supercars that I really, really wanted were the Zonda and CCX. I guess if I wanted a new supercar now, I'd get the Noble M600, but even that doesn't get me as excited as the old M12 GTO 3R did.
I'm kind of losing interest in the new generation of supercars tbh.
I agree. I haven't really desired any supercars lately...not for years, really.
Supercars have never been attainable for me
I know I'll never own a super car so I've never dreamed about them or looked into them near as much as most of you. I'm more into RX, Z and other cars that I can actually own. I don't hate new hyper cars but I sure don't get the warm and fuzzy feeling about many of them compared to some of the older ones. I'm not eve sure I can put my finger on why. I think it's because I like the simple cars more then then computer stuff.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 16, 2013, 08:07:08 PM
Supercars have never been attainable for me
Yes, but when you're twelve, nothing else is either so it doesn't matter.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 16, 2013, 08:18:29 AM
Naw I still have wet dreams about cars like the F1 & F40
Well, it's a dull man who's given up all of his youthful exuberance, isn't it?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 16, 2013, 06:39:40 PM
You're still angry I said a turbo BRZ was a bad idea (it still is)
Anyone who actually tracks their cars disagrees. :huh:
Quote from: S204STi on July 17, 2013, 07:30:54 AM
Anyone who actually tracks their cars disagrees. :huh:
Can you point me to one of these people? There are plenty of folks with "slow" track cars and no desire to turbocharge them.
My NASA-certified driving instructor friend, for one, who wouldn't buy one without a turbo. He has more experience on-track than everyone here combined.
Anyway, back on topic: I don't think the problem is with car manufacturers making boring cars, it's that it's a generational thing to fall in love with the cars we idolized as kids/young adults, and stick with those regardless of what comes out. My dad was like that with his AMX, and my G-ma was like that with her 66 Mustang. No matter how improved the latest cars were, they weren't as exciting as the cars they grew up with.
Quote from: S204STi on July 17, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
My NASA-certified driving instructor friend, for one, who wouldn't buy one without a turbo. He has more experience on-track than everyone here combined.
The guy flies shuttles, big f'in woop. Doesn't qualify him as the authority on what should and shouldn't be on a racetrack.
Quote from: S204STi on July 17, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
My NASA-certified driving instructor friend, for one, who wouldn't buy one without a turbo. He has more experience on-track than everyone here combined.
You guys are a mile above sea level. And he is just one dude. Not exactly representative of every driver everywhere. There are plenty of folks (some of whom are also NASA-certified driving instructors) who have been tracking their "wheezy" Miatas and Civics for years with no desire to "upgrade". As for the BRZ the easy fix for more power is more displacement. It would have been pretty much free and added no cost or weight- which are the two big drivers of the car in the first place.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 17, 2013, 08:57:05 AM
There are plenty of folks (some of whom are also NASA-certified driving instructors) who have been tracking their "wheezy" Miatas and Civics for years with no desire to "upgrade".
Not exactly representative of every driver everywhere. :ohyeah:
Quote from: S204STi on July 17, 2013, 08:43:47 AM
Anyway, back on topic: I don't think the problem is with car manufacturers making boring cars, it's that it's a generational thing to fall in love with the cars we idolized as kids/young adults, and stick with those regardless of what comes out. My dad was like that with his AMX, and my G-ma was like that with her 66 Mustang. No matter how improved the latest cars were, they weren't as exciting as the cars they grew up with.
I disagree. There are hardly any cars from my childhood, adolescent years, or even from my early 20s that I like better than what's available today, but today's hypercars' performance levels are so beyond anyone's driving ability, beyond any limits of all but one track on the planet, and anyone's ability to even comprehend those speeds, that I think a lot of people would rather have more of what made those old cars special than what makes today's hypercars special.
Quote from: S204STi on July 17, 2013, 08:42:00 AM
My NASA-certified driving instructor friend, for one, who wouldn't buy one without a turbo. He has more experience on-track than everyone here combined.
NASA has certified drivers now? I thought they were more about the space thing.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 17, 2013, 08:57:05 AM
You guys are a mile above sea level. And he is just one dude. Not exactly representative of every driver everywhere. There are plenty of folks (some of whom are also NASA-certified driving instructors) who have been tracking their "wheezy" Miatas and Civics for years with no desire to "upgrade". As for the BRZ the easy fix for more power is more displacement. It would have been pretty much free and added no cost or weight- which are the two big drivers of the car in the first place.
Going faster is eventually nice. If there's racing or playing around in a spec series where mods are limited, I get it because your competition is all the same anyways. But if you're doing something like a track day, it still feels more enjoyable to have a faster car simply because it takes less work to get around someone slower than you are..
I can't imagine going to a track with some with 200-300 HP and not wanting more eventually. You get to the point where you're comfortable with the car and then want to improve. You can usually improve your driving, but sometimes an upgrade is needed too.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 17, 2013, 09:30:51 AM
I disagree. There are hardly any cars from my childhood, adolescent years, or even from my early 20s that I like better than what's available today, but today's hypercars' performance levels are so beyond anyone's driving ability, beyond any limits of all but one track on the planet, and anyone's ability to even comprehend those speeds, that I think a lot of people would rather have more of what made those old cars special than what makes today's hypercars special.
Look at the names of Mc Laren's cars for fucks sake. MP4-12C. Sounds like a model number for an A/V receiver.
Quote from: NomisR on July 17, 2013, 10:13:51 AM
Going faster is eventually nice. If there's racing or playing around in a spec series where mods are limited, I get it because your competition is all the same anyways. But if you're doing something like a track day, it still feels more enjoyable to have a faster car simply because it takes less work to get around someone slower than you are..
If everything is in sync (power, handling, brakes,
skills) then I can see that. But hammering down straights and then crawling through corners because the car isn't balanced or I am too shitty of a driver to exploit it seems kind of silly to me. It's more dickwaving than actually driving when it plays out that way.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 17, 2013, 10:18:21 AM
I can't imagine going to a track with some with 200-300 HP and not wanting more eventually. You get to the point where you're comfortable with the car and then want to improve. You can usually improve your driving, but sometimes an upgrade is needed too.
True but 200-300HP is a long way from 950HP.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 17, 2013, 10:18:21 AM
I can't imagine going to a track with some with 200-300 HP and not wanting more eventually. You get to the point where you're comfortable with the car and then want to improve. You can usually improve your driving, but sometimes an upgrade is needed too.
At this point I am fine with my 167hp. It takes a lot more to mess the car up. Eventually, I agree that I'd like ~250 whp but for now I don't think I could handle it.
To me, the right amount of power is when you can put the pedal down and accelerate as quickly as possible. This is usually limited by tires - my 260 HP was easily enough for autocross last weekend since I could light up the tire whenever I wanted, even in 2nd. But with a limited slip and better tires, I'm sure I'd want more power (most of the other cars had 400+)
There's definitely a point at which you have more power than you really need, but it's different for every car.
Quote from: S204STi on July 17, 2013, 08:43:47 AM
Anyway, back on topic: I don't think the problem is with car manufacturers making boring cars, it's that it's a generational thing to fall in love with the cars we idolized as kids/young adults, and stick with those regardless of what comes out. My dad was like that with his AMX, and my G-ma was like that with her 66 Mustang. No matter how improved the latest cars were, they weren't as exciting as the cars they grew up with.
Yeah, I think this pretty much sums it up.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 17, 2013, 04:29:45 PM
To me, the right amount of power is when you can put the pedal down and accelerate as quickly as possible. This is usually limited by tires - my 260 HP was easily enough for autocross last weekend since I could light up the tire whenever I wanted, even in 2nd. But with a limited slip and better tires, I'm sure I'd want more power (most of the other cars had 400+)
There's definitely a point at which you have more power than you really need, but it's different for every car.
On the other hand, it's pretty well known that small and light is way better for autocross than fat and powerful.
Quote from: Rupert on July 24, 2013, 07:33:44 PM
On the other hand, it's pretty well known that small and light is way better for autocross than fat and powerful.
Well yeah, but I was just using it as an example of when I was really driving it hard. If I drove that hard on the street/track I also wouldn't see a big need for more power until some other upgrades are done.