Bugatti Veyron Pegaso Edition

[Ingolstadt]

And taste don't mean speed or bang for buck either.

[Pando]

The problem I see with it is to carry the name Bugatti. This name has such an heritage that I think it was a bad idea to put it on such an awful, and PR-related as you say, car. If it had been called a Volkswagen or something it would've been fine by me, I wouldn't have cared about it.

Calling this the "Bugatti Pegaso" is an even more preposterous idea, and shows that actually VW managers know very litttle or nothing about cars.

I have to agree, but I'm skeptical as to how official the Pegaso name is. And even more so that the idea would've come from the VW HQ. I'm starting to think that it's more likely just a random name than any mutation of the Spanish brand.

[Ferrer]

I have to agree, but I'm skeptical as to how official the Pegaso name is. And even more so that the idea would've come from the VW HQ. I'm starting to think that it's more likely just a random name than any mutation of the Spanish brand.

You're probably right on this.

But they are still stupid.

[Ingolstadt]

Mr Ferrer, what else would suit the name may i ask? Critics doesn't spill out so much bullshit when Bugatti did the EB110, simply because it weren't the fastest, most expensive car, and perhaps simply because it ain't own by some mass market manufacturer. Skeptics are getting a bit 'over' into the realm of criticizing for the sake of critiscizing ....

What the fxxk is wrong with Veyron?

1. It has magnificient looks (ugly or nice up to you, but bland or looking like some other supercar is not something to be associated with its looks)
2. It has awesome power to match the looks and price
3. It is refined, comfortable at the speeds it allows you to travel at.
4. The relentless effort put into it to achieve not the speed alone, but how and in what manner it achieves those speeds is crucial.

Criticizing something so marvelous only prooves certain are either following the pack, acting hard core purist, or downright sour grape.

This is not something to be mentioned against those rubbish hennessy stuff, those are just about the speed and power, this is about the manner and heritage.

[Ferrer]

Mr Ferrer, what else would suit the name may i ask? Critics doesn't spill out so much bullshit when Bugatti did the EB110, simply because it weren't the fastest, most expensive car, and perhaps simply because it ain't own by some mass market manufacturer. Skeptics are getting a bit 'over' into the realm of criticizing for the sake of critiscizing ....

What the fxxk is wrong with Veyron?

1. It has magnificient looks (ugly or nice up to you, but bland or looking like some other supercar is not something to be associated with its looks)
2. It has awesome power to match the looks and price
3. It is refined, comfortable at the speeds it allows you to travel at.
4. The relentless effort put into it to achieve not the speed alone, but how and in what manner it achieves those speeds is crucial.

Criticizing something so marvelous only prooves certain are either following the pack, acting hard core purist, or downright sour grape.

This is not something to be mentioned against those rubbish hennessy stuff, those are just about the speed and power, this is about the manner and heritage.

Well the thing is, objectively the Veyron has the makings of one the truly greatest cars of all time. Engineering-wise it is a massive achievement no doubt about it, and it's likely to stand quite a long time unmatched. I respect it hugely for this, but that's not its problem. It's one of those cars that there's no need to drive it (which doesn't mean I wouldn't want to test it) in order to not like it, a bit like the Porsche Cayenne.

The problems lies within the name. Bugatti. This name carries such an heritage that's difficult to really do it justice now, and the EB110, as the Veyron, certainly didn't. Bugatti's were something very special, not only about performance but art as well. Let's remember that Ettore's family was linked with art, his brother Rembrandt Bugatti being a famous italian sculptor. As such Bugatti first modelled its engines in wood to see if they would look good before actually producing them. Furthermore Bugattis were beautifully engineered downright to the classic alloy wheels.

And they were beautiful on their own, including the famous Type 57 Atlantic. And attention to detail was incredible. Unfortunately with the death of Ettore's son, Jean, in 1939 thing would quite never be the same, the last Bugatti, the Type 101 being a pale shadow of the famous Type 57. Finally Ettore died in 1947 and Bigatti's history drew to an end.

Bugatti's were high performance cars, yes, but they were never about the cold numbers. Bugatti's were about the experience something which the cold numbers can never define. They were works of art, the first Bugatti bieng named "Le Pur Sang" (The thororughbred) clearly explains all.

Which makes all the most painful when the only point of the new Bugatti is to achieve 400km/h. Clearly Volkswagen doesn't understand Bugatti at all. Nor do they understand any of their other famous brands, but that's another history.

Do you want a modern 21st century Bugatti? Try the Pagani Zonda.

[Ingolstadt]

Which makes all the most painful when the only point of the new Bugatti is to achieve 400km/h. Clearly Volkswagen doesn't understand Bugatti at all. Nor do they understand any of their other famous brands, but that's another history.

Do you want a modern 21st century Bugatti? Try the Pagani Zonda.

First of all, many thanks to the in-depth knowledge answers you gave. Salute that.

May i ask then, IF the only objective is to reach 400km/h, they could've done it like how that crap viper does, but they didn't, they took 'cruising' to a whole new level, they have a GOAL, an objective which is truly lacking in many of today's supercars.

Volkswagen wanted Bugatti to make a statement, and bang on the floor when they landed the Veyron, something that makes it truly standout. There you go, they did it. And by the way, it looked magnificent shall i say again, nothing even comes close, everything else just looks generic parked next to it. Thats the thing i see them achieving. I'll pick Mclaren F1 if you'd asked me between veyron, but I know deep down inside, everyone wants something like a Continental GT that no other supercar can be as fast - Hence Veyron.

[Ferrer]

First of all, many thanks to the in-depth knowledge answers you gave. Salute that.

May i ask then, IF the only objective is to reach 400km/h, they could've done it like how that crap viper does, but they didn't, they took 'cruising' to a whole new level, they have a GOAL, an objective which is truly lacking in many of today's supercars.

Volkswagen wanted Bugatti to make a statement, and bang on the floor when they landed the Veyron, something that makes it truly standout. There you go, they did it. And by the way, it looked magnificent shall i say again, nothing even comes close, everything else just looks generic parked next to it. Thats the thing i see them achieving. I'll pick Mclaren F1 if you'd asked me between veyron, but I know deep down inside, everyone wants something like a Continental GT that no other supercar can be as fast - Hence Veyron.

You see for me that's the problem, a Bugatti shouldn't be a statement. A Bugatti is something very special and often that specialness isn't tangible. A Bugatti owner should be someone who doesn't care wheter his car is the fastest or not, he/she should be above that.

A Bugatti has to feel especial, not like a big mid-engined Scirocco. Call me old-fashioned and clasist, but the owner of a Bugatti has to appreciate it's qualities, not because it's a car which can reach 400km/h. Look at the Type 35, it might be one of the most successful race cars ever but actually this is irrelevant because it was a proper Bugatti, "crafted" not "produced".

And it's the same with Bentley. Compare the Brooklands to the Continental GT. There's really no comparison since clearly the Continental GT is the better car. However no matter how efficient it is, it simply cannot match the panache, sense of occasion and sheer presence the good ol' Brooklands has. Yes it might be heavier, slower, thirstier, and handle worse but if I were to buy a Bentley I want a proper Bentley not a fancy Volkswagen with a Bentley badge on it.

[aNOBLEman]

You see for me that's the problem, a Bugatti shouldn't be a statement. A Bugatti is something very special and often that specialness isn't tangible. A Bugatti owner should be someone who doesn't care wheter his car is the fastest or not, he/she should be above that.

A Bugatti has to feel especial, not like a big mid-engined Scirocco. Call me old-fashioned and clasist, but the owner of a Bugatti has to appreciate it's qualities, not because it's a car which can reach 400km/h. Look at the Type 35, it might be one of the most successful race cars ever but actually this is irrelevant because it was a proper Bugatti, "crafted" not "produced".

And it's the same with Bentley. Compare the Brooklands to the Continental GT. There's really no comparison since clearly the Continental GT is the better car. However no matter how efficient it is, it simply cannot match the panache, sense of occasion and sheer presence the good ol' Brooklands has. Yes it might be heavier, slower, thirstier, and handle worse but if I were to buy a Bentley I want a proper Bentley not a fancy Volkswagen with a Bentley badge on it.

I only quoted this post, but that was a great series of posts by you. It explains exactly what's wrong with the Veyron (besides it looking similar to a turtle).

If I wanted a modern supercar that has a goal it would be a McLaren F1 whose goal was to be the best drivers car out there. An even newer example of a supercar with a goal would be the Caparo T1 which has basically the same goal as the F1: to be the best drivers car on the road. Just my humble opinion.

[Ingolstadt]

Well Ferrer, i see you have relentless love for classics. But let me tell you, when those 'classics' were designed, and 'produced' shall i say, the designers are also in the look for the most modern, comfortable, advance, fastest, efficient as possible final 'product'.

However, due the lack of technology and 'craftsmanship' it is in those days that the driver seems to be the one that's bringing the machine alive; simply because the machine is no match to the driver itself either in delivering the speeds or going thru the corners. A different driver would have a MAJOR impact on the performance of the cars in yesteryears.

Today, cars are so advance that the difference in each driver's performance is kept to a minimum. Hence the lack of glorification on a certain model that seems to lack soul and spirit.

You cannot deny the fact that a simple machinery that relies solely on a HUMAN to bring it to 400km/h is no way driveable.

It is sadly inevitable and gladly shall i say that the Veyron is created with such flaws that made it perfect.

As for the Caparo T1, it's just a toy, a Tamiya with crazy power to weight ratio, acceleration and light weight - That sits 2 person.

It is a perfect tool for it's purpose. On the contrary, as everyone knows, ART - is useless.

[aNOBLEman]

On the contrary, as everyone knows, ART - is useless.

I think that art gives people something nice to look at and artful cars are also nice to look at.

[Ingolstadt]

I think that art gives people something nice to look at and artful cars are also nice to look at.

Inflicting emotions, thats art. Not neccessarily 'nice'

BTW, here's some art : YouTube - Audi RS4 AudiSport Iberica

[The_Canuck]

You just said it was useless...

[Ferrer]

Well Ferrer, i see you have relentless love for classics. But let me tell you, when those 'classics' were designed, and 'produced' shall i say, the designers are also in the look for the most modern, comfortable, advance, fastest, efficient as possible final 'product'.

However, due the lack of technology and 'craftsmanship' it is in those days that the driver seems to be the one that's bringing the machine alive; simply because the machine is no match to the driver itself either in delivering the speeds or going thru the corners. A different driver would have a MAJOR impact on the performance of the cars in yesteryears.

Today, cars are so advance that the difference in each driver's performance is kept to a minimum. Hence the lack of glorification on a certain model that seems to lack soul and spirit.

You cannot deny the fact that a simple machinery that relies solely on a HUMAN to bring it to 400km/h is no way driveable.

It is sadly inevitable and gladly shall i say that the Veyron is created with such flaws that made it perfect.

As for the Caparo T1, it's just a toy, a Tamiya with crazy power to weight ratio, acceleration and light weight - That sits 2 person.

It is a perfect tool for it's purpose. On the contrary, as everyone knows, ART - is useless.

I'm not criticisng the engineering or the technology, as I said in my original post I respect it hugely for what it has achieved.

But that's not the problem for me. It's the spirit in which the car was created. It's sole aim was to beat the 400km/h, if it didn't do that it was pointless as far as Volkswagen was concerned. And that's the problem when a car is focused on such a (may I say pointless?) figure everything else becomes irrelevant. And a Bugatti of all cars should be about that "everything else". If anything the speed was just a bonus.

Look at the Zonda for instance. Yes it is fast, but that's not it's main principle. The Zonda is about the drama, the excitement, the style, the panache. It has what makes a car stand out from the rest, that little something that makes you look at it and just know it's a great car.

On the Veyron it's the opposite. It's technically brilliant but it leaves me completely cold. And on a Bugatti, of all cars, that's just a crime.

(PS. I agree on the Caparo, that's just RC car in real world size)

[Ingolstadt]

You just said it was useless...

Yes, perfect ART is supposed to be perfectly useless. Mona Lisa's useless, Veyron's useless considering it's a car that consumers petrol like nobody's business, and if i'm not wrong, you have to choose between that hot chick or a golf bag.

I admire it because its utterly useless if uselfull is the benchmark of being a usefull car. Oh, corolla's usefull.

Ferrer, i have great respect of the Zonda as well, but when i looked at the Zonda, i can only think of how well it would've performed on track, how wonderful if i'm sitting in it. When i looked at the Veyron, I'm thinking how painstaking it would've been for the years of effort, for the relentless not-giving-up spirit the people has in making it.

[Ferrer]

Ferrer, i have great respect of the Zonda as well, but when i looked at the Zonda, i can only think of how well it would've performed on track, how wonderful if i'm sitting in it. When i looked at the Veyron, I'm thinking how painstaking it would've been for the years of effort, for the relentless not-giving-up spirit the people has in making it.

It would've given Volkswagen so much bad press if they had given up...