The LS7 is amazing - LG Motorsports' latest results

[Matra et Alpine]

Dozens? Let's see them.
And when did I say that's the only reason you're citing? No, you said that its driving dynamics was a reason it was never built.

NO. I *ADDED* that the dynamics were a reason.
THEN you argued they had NO place and so the conversation hsa focussed on that.
I also consider it looked hideous ! There are ltos of other reason.
I never said htere were any,
You seem to miscomprehend English enough to know the difference

In order to go into production at all, a proof of concept prototype has to be built, in which the engineers would determine the feasibility of the car (and yes, that includes dynamics). The GT90 never even got to that stage.

erm, a "proof of concept" was built.
WHAT HTE HELL DO YOU THINK WAS DRIVEN ?
You're imagining things again, G
Kind of makes discussion with you pointless -- and yet somehoe intriguing in the smae way as baiting-bears
[quote] Why? Based on dynamics? NO. Based on the fact that nobody gave two shites about it. YES. So basically, driving dynamics has just about nothing to do with the GT90 not being built. [/quote}
no, just one of them.

And the possibility that it MAY surface in a Renault sports car makes it French? No. The VQ design predates Renault's control of Nissan by some years. A version is already in the Vel Satis. That doesn't make it French.

You are AGAIN showing you have a major bias when you read anythign
I even gave you a DIRECT example where Clarkson has got his facts wrong.
But you dont' seem to be able to read and comprehend.
AGAIN imagining SOMETHIGN ELSE was written.
Try again.
[quote]How did the speed change? When it was introduced, they were already promising a 400 kmh top speed. [/quote}
"promising" and achieving are two different things.
But as I've said before you are more taken by written word that practical
[quote]The fact that they unveiled the concept, and were already promising 400 kmh top speeds, plus YOUR assertion, implies they had already resolved most of the aero problems.[/quote
No, jsut htat they were aware and had already designed in features for it.
Go and READ abotu the nistory of the car reather than makign it up on teh spot.

Clearly not the case. What seems to be clearly the case is that aero problems WERE a much more significant problem than cooling issues, which is what I had said. And which is the exact opposite of what you were saying.

WRONG>
The car was goign NOWHERE if the cooling wasn't resolved and requred MAJOR redesign.
The aero was "tweakign" -- go look at the original dn teh delivered. They're not THAT different/>
Under the skin tho is WELL different.
Tell me, how much do you actually KNOW about the Veyron history ?
Did you ever SEE any of the original plans and articles or is it all based on retrospective articles ( many of which try to ignore the dog it was originally )

Well, unless they start making Stradivarius violins tomorrow (pretty bloody unlikely), that comparison is moot.
You'll notice that it depends on which Ferrari it is: people don't generally put down deposits on the front-engined V12's a generation in advance. Why not?

Because front engined Ferrari dont' have the cachet or hte "Ferrari esperience handlign".
Actually PROVING what I was trying to get you to grasp

Forgotten already, eh? You said "people dont' make firm commitments on speculation".
By "speculation" did you mean "investment that is very risky but could yield great profits"? That meaning says nothing about whether the risk is justified or not. No matter the relevant definition, whether it's about risk vs profit, whether it's about the unkown nature of a future car (relating to its dynamics), people still do make firm commitments on speculation. My point is: People will make firm commitments on cars like the Ford GT. And they have. People will not make firm commitments on cars like the GT90, Shelby Cobra Concept, etc. Nor do I think they will likely make commitments to speculation on a Ford that's priced like an Enzo.

Thanks for proving you ODNT understand the breadth of meaning of specualtion as I had asked you.
I won't bait tyou on that anymore as we've exposed the "problem" enough.
Even I'm getting embarrased for you

Do you really think they'd put in an order for a car they never hope to sell? It doesn't matter if 400 out of 700 million is insignificant.

Now EVERYOEN is having a good laugh

That would already account for 40% of all Corvette's sold in Europe last year

Even MORE funny.
You are like the depserate salesman who says his produc tis higly successful because sales are up 100% over last year having sodl a second one
MAth a problem as WELL as English

(and if you're trying to say those that are ordered aren't sold, then it makes little sense for a dealer, who's dropped large Euros on a C6 that he can't move off his lot, to put in an order on an even more expensive Corvette).

First I Never said they all were.
AGAIN, PLEASE spend more tiem in yrou English comprehension classes
Second .... So you dont' understand abotu sellign either.
Having a "show car" that attracts peopel to come visit is VERY important to a dealer. It's why in teh UK you often see F1 and WRC cars inteh dealership. They dont' expect to sell them either
But I dont' debate they won't sell them either.
I was just pointing out the stupidiy of the assumption YOU make abotu it.
Neither can be confirmed until they are cleared from the forecourts and subsequent intereste measured. eg look at Ford GT's now, going for a LOT less than they did coz the interest has already waned.

It's a drop in the bucket, but it puts into direct light your statement that people don't make commitments on speculation. Because they obviously do.

No it actually shows that you think the world is black or white.
I have tried to "shine light" on your "black" views to hopefully highlight the greys for you to be more realistic. You in error can only imagine I'm only saying the world is "white".
Clearly you can't grasp such complex concepts.
Bear baiting ended for the day -- even I'm getting tired of the dumb animals

[Matra et Alpine]

.. nearly............

It's the magnitute of that initial cost.
There is additional cost, compared to modifying an existing car. You have to consider the cost of tooling (basically starting from the ground up), manufacturing infrastructure, development testing so the damn thing even goes straight, development testing so the damn thing even turns, development testing for reliability, etc

Look let me go through it ONE MORE TIME s l o w l y ...

An engine design requires ALL of what you ahve described above.
So the designer is going to have ALL of those tasks for the car for the target market.

You've lost the place and forgotten thatn the point was that IF it's for the US market then all those costs are absorbed in the main design budget of tens of millions.

Whether a company wants to start from the ground up, that calls for a very risky buiness proposition. Whether a company in the US wants to buy an outfit like TVR, and modify it for the US market, that is also a very risky business proposition. You guys make it sound like it's so easy and that everybody in the UK does it on a daily basis.

Just not reading are you
Does what ? Start up car companies ?
Actually over here it DOES happen lots.
Ariel, Deronda, Radical and HUNDREDS of kit car companies.
SOrry, G, you REALLY should read more before making ASSumptiosn public

Does what ? Build an engine ? It happens all the time. Just look at the LS1-7 But you dont' necessarily start from "ground zero" every time. But to think so would be a foolish view of the world being either one or other woudlnt it

Might I sugest it now ends -- or create a "Guibo World" thread and we'll continue the games there.

[KWKG]

i agree Egg Nog ....all you did was highlight that a great engine has been created and your thread was taken over by the old technology vs displacement debate. Well excuse me for inflaming things....but.....this debate really does not have a definative answer but I think a top fuel dragster is as close as you will get. Whilst nitro methane plays a large part the engine builders choose an ancient hemi design V8 as a base to produce 6000 hp plus. I don't think even the most technologically advanced rotaries or 4 pots (thinking early eighties F1) could hold together under this stress.

And then there is the old quality of sound !!!!!!

[henk4]

.this debate really does not have a definative answer but I think a top fuel dragster is as close as you will get. Whilst nitro methane plays a large part the engine builders choose an ancient hemi design V8 as a base to produce 6000 hp plus. I don't think even the most technologically advanced rotaries or 4 pots (thinking early eighties F1) could hold together under this stress.

the 1.5 litre F1 turbo four pots (only BMW and Hart engines, the others were already V6 engines) were not designed in the way of making an engine as light as possible, but still being able to cope with the power. (up to 1100 bhp in qualifying trim). I give it to you that US V8s may be able to withstand relatively more power, but could that be because they were not designed on the limits in the first place?