Supercars are Dumb

[G.Irish]

Here is the thing.
Supercars are not for us.
They arent for the track, and they arent for hooning.

They are like Lee's watches. A status symbol to show off your wealth, style, and status (on a larger scale, obviously) with just barely enough utility as to maintain plausible deniability that they arent pure jewelry.

Its almost cruel that it just so happens they also are perfect objects of lust for car guys like us.

I think in a way they are actually made for true driving enthusiasts, it's just that we can't afford them. If I were Ferrari/Lambo/McLaren/Porsche or whoever and I was making cars for rich poseurs, I wouldn't be making the cars that they are making.

Sure, I'd make them look sexy and all. But I would make something with a big ass engine with twin turbos pushing 800-1000 hp, turbo lag, heat soak, and drivability be damned. It would be set up to be soft as possible so the occupants can occasionally forget that they're traveling down the road in a vehicle. The traction control would be set up to only give full power in a straight line. While any steering angle is detected it would cut power to 200 hp. Naturally it'd be a convertible because rich poseurs don't care about chassis stiffness. It would have all the features you could get in a S class like massaging seats, a fragrance dispenser, and self parking. It would also have motorized doors and come with a carbon fiber golf club set.

I mean, why bother with all of the stuff to make these cars go fast around a racetrack when so many rich people don't care to do anything of the sort?

My car company would make the ultimate luxo speed barge, even more stupid than the Veyron. But the real money would be in extreme SUV's. Why do a 6x6 when you could make a stuper-SUV with 1000 hp and two rows of 4 tires to make a 10x10? It would make the Canyonero look like a RAV4 and you'd need a CDL to drive it. If you ever get stranded my company will send a heavy-lift helicopter to haul your SUV back to the dealership.

[Apoc]

I mean, why bother with all of the stuff to make these cars go fast around a racetrack when so many rich people don't care to do anything of the sort?

Because bells and whistles sell things and rich people like them. My Tag was 20x the price and has 10x the features of my everyday watch. I've never used a single feature my Tag has, other than telling time... and even then, it's only when I dress up once a year. same same.

[fiveoh2go]

For the reason stated before. Unless you're filthy rich, you're simply not going to drive a supercar balls out because of the risk of damage. If you're buying that Ford GT because of its stellar resale value you are going to totally ruin it if you hit something with it. Now if you're the guy buying that car to drive it like its ancestors would've wanted and don't care abou the consequences then that's different.

If someone wads up a nice 275 GTB, rebuilds it, and then sells it...it's still gonna be worth a lot. Not as much as a car that has a clean and uneventful history...but it's still worth a great deal of cash. Only so many were built and the demand far exceeds the supply.

I think the FGT is creeping into this category of car. Obviously the FGT isn't on the same level (cost wise) as the Four Cam, but both cars will always be worth something substantial.

To own a car that's as athletic as a FGT and not experience what it is capable of on track..to me..is crazy. I don't mean you must tack it every single weekend but at least taking it out once or twice a season to run it through its paces seems only sensible to me. :dunno:

[WRXtranceformed]

Rich people might like included features, wealthy people like customization. Which is why Porsche and a few other companies charge so much for individual features, custom leathers etc. Because they can and people will pay it. I do think that makers of these cars do really make them to be fast because they are genuine car guys, they just make them for people on a different financial level than you and I. A lot of them are designed to showcase their racing-bred technology as well. Are non car guys gonna buy them just to talk about how much faster their car is around a track than their buddy's knowing full well they would never track them? Of course but I don't think that's necessarily why these cars are built in the first place.

[ScottyB]

I mean, why bother with all of the stuff to make these cars go fast around a racetrack when so many rich people don't care to do anything of the sort?

this applies to far more than supercars though. i think we all were having a conversation in another thread about how BMW's M division is becoming hollow for this exact same reason. These days they'll put the M-label on a towel rack if it means selling more of something. I remember thinking that the engineers working on the M cars must drink themselves into oblivion after work every day knowing that 98% of their talent for extracting performance out of a chassis is utterly lost on the average butthead that just hamfists their way through rush hour traffic thinking that they're "on the edge." But they sell, and they sell because its "The Best" and it fortifies the brand in a tangible way - track times/bragging rights.

i see it the same way with supercars. they're built the way they are by real, live, enthusiastic engineers that "get" performance dynamics and they do it in order to be The Best in their market. Richie Rich doesn't care whether or not he can achieve those numbers, just as long as everyone else knows what it could do...and by extension it makes him a hero and he has "taste" because its a niche product.

me? if i had Megabucks i'd buy the shit out of grey market cars. give me an old escort cossie, a lancia delta, renault clio V6, an S1 elise...it goes on and on. i'm not concerned about insane speed as much as cars that are legends because of how they drive, the personality and all that. i want the broader performance experience and the more unique the better. either that or i'd do the custom route and make something unholy and totally retarded, like a GMC syclone rally car or an LS7 powered buick roadmaster wagon track build with a Smokey and The Bandit paint job.

[G.Irish]

this applies to far more than supercars though. i think we all were having a conversation in another thread about how BMW's M division is becoming hollow for this exact same reason. These days they'll put the M-label on a towel rack if it means selling more of something.

To be fair I think what BMW is trying to do is give customers more entry points into more hardcore BMW offerings. If you're someone who can't afford a M3/M5 yet, maybe you can get a M235i or a 335i M sport. Especially considering that the M2 won't be here for another year or so, and even then not everyone can swing a 2-door that small. Still, I don't understand why there's a X6 M instead of a X3 M or why we didn't get the E92 M3 GTS (supposedly we will get the next one).

i see it the same way with supercars. they're built the way they are by real, live, enthusiastic engineers that "get" performance dynamics and they do it in order to be The Best in their market. Richie Rich doesn't care whether or not he can achieve those numbers, just as long as everyone else knows what it could do...and by extension it makes him a hero and he has "taste" because its a niche product.

I think there are tiers of supercar customers. There's guys like us who want to take the cars to track days and go racing. When I was crewing Ferrari Challenge there was a guy racing there who also raced a E30 with NASA. One of the other rich guys racing with Ferrari Challenge was "like us" too.

Then there's the guy who reads the magazines, maybe watches some racing on TV but doesn't do any performance driving of his own. He's aware of the performance but he doesn't really care to explore the limits, maybe because he doesn't want to take the risk of the ride of shame back to the paddock in a flatbed.

Lastly there's the boulevard pimpin' guy. He doesn't know much about the cars other than what badge it has and that it is fast. He wants the car as a status symbol first and foremost. He doesn't care to learn about the car or driving and kinda doesn't know what he doesn't know. He's the guy who crashes from a stoplight:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pgm8I0B8bY">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pgm8I0B8bY</a><!-- m -->

There are some other supercar buyer archetypes like the cars-as-investments guys (sometimes known as the money-laundering guy) and the tasteless enthusiast guy who butchers supercars with riveted body kits.

[D_Eclipse9916]

To own a car that's as athletic as a FGT and not experience what it is capable of on track..to me..is crazy. I don't mean you must tack it every single weekend but at least taking it out once or twice a season to run it through its paces seems only sensible to me. :dunno:

I don't think you really understand what "tracking" entails. We aren't talking parade laps. The Ford GT isn't everything to everybody. Fabulous car but your Ford Fanboism has reached my limit :lol:

[Evan]

I think in a way they are actually made for true driving enthusiasts, it's just that we can't afford them. If I were Ferrari/Lambo/McLaren/Porsche or whoever and I was making cars for rich poseurs, I wouldn't be making the cars that they are making.

Sure, I'd make them look sexy and all. But I would make something with a big ass engine with twin turbos pushing 800-1000 hp, turbo lag, heat soak, and drivability be damned. It would be set up to be soft as possible so the occupants can occasionally forget that they're traveling down the road in a vehicle. ....
I mean, why bother with all of the stuff to make these cars go fast around a racetrack when so many rich people don't care to do anything of the sort?

The guys want that race-bred pure racetrack performance as a matter of pedigree and exclusivity for image, and they can spot a fraud. I dont doubt for a second they get enamored with the tech features, 'ring laptimes, aero, etc of their supercars and Im willing to bet thats whats driving sales over just a SL 65 AMG or M6 cruiser.
Thats what makes dual clutch gearboxes so ideal for them "oh look its FASTER, oh and bonus your fat ass doesnt have to learn to work a clutch" and magnetic suspension "oh look active suspension is FASTER, oh and bonus it can be cushy on the street and raise the front end to get in your driveway"
They get the best of both worlds, the FASTER RACECAR image backed up by truth/laptimes, but hidden in there, its a better streetcar which is actually what they are using it for.

To continue the watch analogy, its like a TAG (or whatever) Diver watch. Does anyone who buys them actually take them diving? But they have to look and act the part or its not desirable.
Or its like suburban kids who wear North Face. That jacket will never see a mountain, but if it wasnt built to be able to, they wouldnt want it.

[D_Eclipse9916]

Here is the thing.
Supercars are not for us.
They arent for the track, and they arent for hooning.

They are like Lee's watches. A status symbol to show off your wealth, style, and status (on a larger scale, obviously) with just barely enough utility as to maintain plausible deniability that they arent pure jewelry.

Its almost cruel that it just so happens they also are perfect objects of lust for car guys like us.

I mean, why bother with all of the stuff to make these cars go fast around a racetrack when so many rich people don't care to do anything of the sort?

Problem is, people who make good money want "the best of breed". If you are an A-type personality that just spent the past 15 years working 100 hours a week to get your company off the ground and just sold it for a cool 500 million...you are not the type to go "oh give me that shiny thing". More likely you want "the best". Give me the fastest, most hardcore version you got (a reflection of their own view of themselves). I think that is a decent percentage of the Porsche GT3/Ferrari Stradale etc money.

Then you have old money, they are the ones that buy the ultra high-end luxury cars.

Then you have a percentage of "I inherited dad's money and since he didnt pay enough attention to me (see 100 hours a week) I want that FLASHIEST thing I can find". OR the slightly higher percentage of "I didn't quite make a bajillion dollars but I want people to think I did" that buy the lower end flashiest shit they can find.
Then you have the uber rich that park their money in anything they can find that can't get taxed. It's a commodity, not a car.

Those are my sentiments. Very very very small percentage of wealthy people buy it for their own experience. But they are out there and influencing others. Interesting article on modern-day networking among executives going beyond the golf course and lounge rooms.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/technology/in-silicon-valley-the-rise-of-high-speed-networking.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/techn ... .html?_r=0</a><!-- m -->

[G.Irish]

The guys want that race-bred pure racetrack performance as a matter of pedigree and exclusivity for image, and they can spot a fraud. I dont doubt for a second they get enamored with the tech features, 'ring laptimes, aero, etc of their supercars and Im willing to bet thats whats driving sales over just a SL 65 AMG or M6 cruiser.

Yeah the tier 2 guy who actually does some reading into things will choose the racebred car over the high horsepower cruiser. The guy who likes a chill driving experience or the guy who wants a lot of power but doesn't want the challenge of actually driving the car will pick that SL65 or Continental GT.

Thats what makes dual clutch gearboxes so ideal for them "oh look its FASTER, oh and bonus your fat ass doesnt have to learn to work a clutch" and magnetic suspension "oh look active suspension is FASTER, oh and bonus it can be cushy on the street and raise the front end to get in your driveway"
They get the best of both worlds, the FASTER RACECAR image backed up by truth/laptimes, but hidden in there, its a better streetcar which is actually what they are using it for.

At the end of the day though, these are street cars. When you have an extremely hardcore street car it just results in the car sitting in the garage more often because they're such a hassle to drive. By making cars that can reasonably be driven on street and still blast down the track you start to see supercars that are driven more often. Same thing with the traction control and all that. On one hand it makes the cars more idiot-proof but your customers can keep giving you money for a long time if they don't kill themselves (this is why TVR is always going bankrupt).

Coming back to the main point, if you wanted something truly hardcore you'd buy an actual racecar or something purpose-built like a Atom, Caterham, Radical, Formula Mazda, etc. Or if you're a really rich bastard, an ex-F1 car.

To continue the watch analogy, its like a TAG (or whatever) Diver watch. Does anyone who buys them actually take them diving? But they have to look and act the part or its not desirable.
Or its like suburban kids who wear North Face. That jacket will never see a mountain, but if it wasnt built to be able to, they wouldnt want it.

True, but I think it's that way for even much more modestly priced cars. How many people who buy something like a STi, Evo, Boss 302, Type-R, Club Sport Miata, Elise/Exige etc. ever take them on track or autox? Those are all somewhat hardcore versions of regular cars and a relatively high number of buyers do use them for performance driving but the vast majority of buyers just drive them on the street.

[WRXtranceformed]

I played golf the other day with a guy who worked in the car dealership industry in Roanoke (who was visiting his family down in Charlotte). We were talking about Cars & Coffee and high end dealerships that "sponsor" a lot of them. He said he met the guy who owns the #1 exotic dealership in the country which is down in Miami. He was like maybe 28 or 29 years old. The owner told him that 99% of all of his sales are to guys who walk in with a wife beater and flip flops, straight off the boat from some South American country. They pay with suitcases full of cash. So you can add "drug money launderers" to the exotic car buyers list :lol:

[JPolen01]

He said he met the guy who owns the #1 exotic dealership in the country which is down in Miami. He was like maybe 28 or 29 years old. The owner told him that 99% of all of his sales are to guys who walk in with a wife beater and flip flops, straight off the boat from some South American country. They pay with suitcases full of cash. So you can add "drug money launderers" to the exotic car buyers list :lol:

Probably Lamborghini Miami (Prestige Imports). The young guy who owns it now didn't start it though, his father did.

[G.Irish]

I mean, why bother with all of the stuff to make these cars go fast around a racetrack when so many rich people don't care to do anything of the sort?

Problem is, people who make good money want "the best of breed". If you are an A-type personality that just spent the past 15 years working 100 hours a week to get your company off the ground and just sold it for a cool 500 million...you are not the type to go "oh give me that shiny thing". More likely you want "the best". Give me the fastest, most hardcore version you got (a reflection of their own view of themselves). I think that is a decent percentage of the Porsche GT3/Ferrari Stradale etc money.

True, but I think there are probably more wealthy people who subscribe to the Bugatti Veyron philosophy. Very big numbers in a straightline, somewhat tacky, one-dimensional, but also exclusive and expensive. Note that Floyd Mayweather, one of the most tasteless shithead rich/famous people in the world, has three Veyrons. I think there's a lot of room in that market to make that kinda of car.

Those are my sentiments. Very very very small percentage of wealthy people buy it for their own experience. But they are out there and influencing others. Interesting article on modern-day networking among executives going beyond the golf course and lounge rooms.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/technology/in-silicon-valley-the-rise-of-high-speed-networking.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/techn ... .html?_r=0</a><!-- m -->

I love how that article kinda takes a jab at road racing like it's for elite assholes like Jean Girard from Talladega Nights:

One morning in late January, Mr. Bonforte, a handful of professional racecar drivers and about a dozen members of a pit crew were crowded into a tiny tent just off the pit lane of the Daytona International Speedway. It was the day before the starting flag for the Rolex 24, an endurance race that begins the International Motor Sports Association’s racing season. Sports-car racing — as opposed to the Indianapolis 500 or Nascar racing — is generally the domain of upper-crust European carmakers like Porsche, BMW, Ferrari, Maserati and Aston Martin.

News flash, top NASCAR race teams are just as expensive as all but maybe the factory LMP1 race programs.

Then there's the ridiculous idea that the maleness of performance driving and racing is a problem because it excludes women from networking opportunities. I mean, how is racing any different than any other sport that more men like than women? Conversely, I don't see anyone complaining that more horseback riding is female dominated.

[D_Eclipse9916]

I guess I read that article completely differently mr pessimist

I read it as a "domain of upper-crust european carmarkers" opposed to Indy 500 which is open-wheel cars, and NASCAR which are Spec tube frame. Seems right to me, the European carmakers don't play in Indy 500 and NASCAR.... I think you read it differently.

I also think the article is more referencing the movement of players from one past-time to another. It does make it seem like a playboy sport, but I guess I am not as sensitive to those jabs since guess what...racing is expensive.

I never would have pegged myself as the optimist in this situation.

[G.Irish]

The reason I think it's a jab is the general gist of the whole article which is that road racing is for the elitist new money and because of the manufacturers he specifically mentioned. Chevrolet is far more dedicated to endurance racing than Aston Martin, Ferrari, or Maserati yet he conveniently omitted Chevy from the list of Daytona 24 manufacturers. There were several Ford powered DP's out there but no mention of them either.

And the gender stuff is clearly meant to put the sport in a bad light. I just don't see how road racing is any different than any other past time that business people use for networking, that whole angle is flat out wrong.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk