GTP Cool Wall: 2016+ Bugatti Chiron

[Mike458]

Absolutely amazing car to look at... except in a couple years' time... the people that are going to own this car will instantly bring it to Hell and beyond...

Preemptive SU.

If it wasn't a "meme car" (like the Veyron), then it would be cool.

 

[Epic B]

Meh. It's not really that different from the Veyron, and there are other 6 figure cars I like better.

 

[MoLiEG]

Gorgeous. Simply Gorgeous.

But it's not as beautiful as the Veyron.

SZ.

 

[Suzumiya]

I woke up in a new Bugatti

 

[Obelisk]

No kill like overkill.

SU.

 

[Snorevette]

It's ostentatious, sure, but it's the right kind of ostentatious if that makes sense. You have cars like the Lykan Hypersport, which is expensive and flashy because the headlights have diamonds in them, and then you have the Veyron (and soon the Chiron) which are expensive and flashy because so much engineering has gone into them to make them as super and car as a supercar can be.

That being said, that only saves it from being seriously uncool. It's still going to be bought and driven (or rather not driven, sadly) by people who couldn't give a toss about the technological prowess of the car, but rather only care about two figures - the top speed, and the price tag in comparison to how much they make per month.

 

[niky]

World's fastest penis enhancer.

-

Bling is so not cool.

-

I do understand it's a fantastic bit of engineering. But as with quarter-million dollar tourbillons... which are also eye-wateringly amazing bits of engineering... that doesn't change the fact that it is a luxury item that will be bought only by the fabulously wealthy for fabulously whimsical reasons.

Except people like Mayweather, who are banking on fickle bubble-nomics to sell the car for more than they bought it for... which is an even uncooler reason to buy a car.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I gave it an uncool. It's seriously uncool for being such an expensive and ostentatious supercar, but it also has an air of class about it that the Veyron never did. It's a good looking car, inside and out, and it looks like it's actually worth the money you pay for it. I also think that, for now, it's one of the most (culturally, not technically) sophisticated supercars you could be seen driving, so there are redeeming features. It's not as uncool as driving a P1 or a Koeniggsegg, for example.

Oh, and as an automotive engineer, I'm not really sure why everyone is banging on about the engineering of the Chiron. It's fast, we get it. And yes, it's well engineered, but if you want to see a really well engineered car then go drool over an XL1.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

"I AM VERY RICH! LOOK AT ME! WHY WON'T YOU LOVE ME?"

I think it looks a lot nicer than the Veyron.

Exactly, a perfectly fine automobile for throwing breadcrumbs at the peasants as they're walking by

 

[TheCracker]

N/A

 

[SonicCharmeleon]

Uncool, all of them will go to the middle east and sit in a garage.

 

[McLaren]

Since this isn't even for sale yet (though half of the entire production run has already been ordered) and - given that it's still undergoing final testing and evaluation - isn't even being built yet, what would the point of it being on the cool wall?

They are for sale, though, and they are reportedly beginning delivery status in Europe early next year. The Monaco showroom received a Chiron to showcase the car whilst clients then configure their new cars, and then you have Bugatti who said 1 man purchased both the VGT & world premiere car.

The US cars are probably still under-going testing, but they look like they are definitely for sale. Just have to get through the 5-month build time right now, or the 18-month wait if you haven't gotten in line already.

 

[Famine]

They are for sale, though

They're for order. £250,000 deposit.

and they are reportedly beginning delivery status in Europe early next year

They do.

The Monaco showroom received a Chiron to showcase the car whilst clients then configure their new cars

As did the London one - I was there for the opening. You might recognise it as the very same pre-production model from the press releases and the lead image in this thread. The blue interior, for reference, feels super weird.

and then you have Bugatti who said 1 man purchased both the VGT & world premiere car.

He has indeed bought the VGT (though not received it yet - Bugatti is still using it for promotional purposes) and the first build, but he's not going to receive that for some time yet.

The US cars are probably still under-going testing, but they look like they are definitely for sale. Just have to get through the 5-month build time right now, or the 18-month wait if you haven't gotten in line already.

You absolutely can 'buy' them - or rather put your £250,000 deposit down. As I mentioned earlier, around half of the entire 500 car production run has already been ordered, but crucially not a single customer has driven it yet because it isn't finished yet. Even the guy that bought six of them hasn't driven one.

At the moment, this is a car that only the development team have driven. No customers have them yet and it hasn't even been launched to journalists. Even the CEO of Bugatti, in a stunt at Le Mans, has only driven the pre-production Chiron...

So in effect this is still a concept or prototype car and the cars in the images are pre-production only. Which is why I'm wondering what the point of it being on the cool wall is.

 

[MisterWaffles]

So in effect this is still a concept

It's approved for production, so not anymore.

or prototype car

That was the prototype, this is the final product from testing, so no, it isn't a prototype.

So I guess it's just a non-released final version road car.

 

[Tornado]

I remember when the Veyron was still pretty new, I overreacted to every perceived slight of it as well (sorry @Joey D. Remember getting in a fight over it with you back then D: ). Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.

 

[Famine]

It's approved for production, so not anymore.

But not actually being produced...

That was the prototype, this is the final product from testing, so no, it isn't a prototype.

So I guess it's just a non-released final version road car.

Or "pre-production", as I mentioned.

This is a car that a manufacturer has said it would make but currently isn't and, until it starts making them and customers start taking delivery it's a car that can, at any point, be cancelled.

The pre-production cars shown here then could be described as being an earlier kind of Chiron than the cars that should be delivered to customers - or, if you like to read things in Greek, protos (early) typos (kind).

So in effect a prototype car.

In any case, what's being polled here is a car that no-one can drive (unless you're on the Bugatti R&D team).

 

[Tyger]

But not actually being produced...

Or "pre-production", as I mentioned.

This is a car that a manufacturer has said it would make but currently isn't and, until it starts making them and customers start taking delivery it's a car that can, at any point, be cancelled.

The pre-production cars shown here then could be described as being an earlier kind of Chiron than the cars that should be delivered to customers - or, if you like to read things in Greek, protos (early) typos (kind).

So in effect a prototype car.

In any case, what's being polled here is a car that no-one can drive (unless you're on the Bugatti R&D team).

Same old argument, and dead horse. And still nowhere does it "say" a pre-production car that has been approved for production shouldn't qualify for these polls, hence their inclusion. The argument that most people will never be in a position to drive it is, as ever, a facile argument when that is the case for almost all of the cars in this thread, for almost all of us. This is not "Cool Wall (for cars you may one day be able to drive)". It's just about cars. And please don't dig up the "these aren't cars" argument again. Perhaps on this occasion respect what seems to be the consensus, and have fun without enforcing your own set of guidelines (actual moderator guidelines aside) on the thread.

 

[Tornado]

I'm amazed you started that post with that sentence.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Same old argument, and dead horse. And still nowhere does it "say" a pre-production car that has been approved for production shouldn't qualify for these polls, hence their inclusion. The argument that most people will never be in a position to drive it is, as ever, a facile argument when that is the case for almost all of the cars in this thread, for almost all of us. This is not "Cool Wall (for cars you may one day be able to drive)". It's just about cars. And please don't dig up the "these aren't cars" argument again. Perhaps on this occasion respect what seems to be the consensus, and have fun without enforcing your own set of guidelines (actual moderator guidelines aside) on the thread.

I agree, there's too many silly restrictions on the cool wall, like my personal favourite "this car isn't allowed on the road, so it isn't cool and shouldn't be polled" even though the case with most of the cars on the cool wall is that they can't even do their cool things until they get to a racetrack, so what's the point?

 

[Famine]

I agree, there's too many silly restrictions on the cool wall, like my personal favourite "this car isn't allowed on the road, so it isn't cool and shouldn't be polled" even though the case with most of the cars on the cool wall is that they can't even do their cool things until they get to a racetrack, so what's the point?

The only restrictions on the Cool Wall that I can see are put there by whomever is running the Cool Wall at the moment. I haven't seen anything like your example being put in those restrictions.

Or are you suggesting that some opinions - like people who say they won't vote on concept cars or SUBRC - shouldn't be allowed to be passed in these threads?

Same old argument, and dead horse. And still nowhere does it "say" a pre-production car that has been approved for production shouldn't qualify for these polls, hence their inclusion. The argument that most people will never be in a position to drive it is, as ever, a facile argument when that is the case for almost all of the cars in this thread, for almost all of us. This is not "Cool Wall (for cars you may one day be able to drive)". It's just about cars. And please don't dig up the "these aren't cars" argument again. Perhaps on this occasion respect what seems to be the consensus, and have fun without enforcing your own set of guidelines (actual moderator guidelines aside) on the thread.

Oh dear.

Take the angry hat off and try again. Here's the key points you missed:
No-one can drive the Chiron - it doesn't exist yet.
No-one can own the Chiron - it doesn't exist yet.
The car being polled doesn't exist yet and the images used are not of it (for that reason).
Trying to vote on a car that doesn't exist doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I'm not sure what 'respecting the consensus' has to do with anything - particularly in a thread about how 'cool' a car (that doesn't exist yet) is - as there's no reason that a consensus must be correct, especially when it's something wholly subjective.

As for me enforcing my own set of guidelines... you'll have to point where I'm doing that anywhere, because all I can see is me stating my opinion and supporting it with information and having a discussion with other users. At least until you turn up apparently wanting to determine what opinions are and aren't allowed to be expressed...

 

[Tyger]

I'm amazed you started that post with that sentence.

Quelle surprise, an immediate response. In fairness I hadn't seen the memo in a particular poll I didn't pay much attention to a couple of months ago. That's amazing? Really?

I'll remember to keep checking the nom post for further updates, though it might be cool to actually gauge everyones' reactions to such updates also.

 

[Tyger]

Oh dear.

Take the angry hat off and try again. Here's the key points you missed:
No-one can drive the Chiron - it doesn't exist yet.
No-one can own the Chiron - it doesn't exist yet.
The car being polled doesn't exist yet and the images used are not of it (for that reason).
Trying to vote on a car that doesn't exist doesn't make any sense at all to me.

I'm not sure what 'respecting the consensus' has to do with anything - particularly in a thread about how 'cool' a car (that doesn't exist yet) is - as there's no reason that a consensus must be correct, especially when it's something wholly subjective.

As for me enforcing my own set of guidelines... you'll have to point where I'm doing that anywhere, because all I can see is me stating my opinion and supporting it with information and having a discussion with other users. At least until you turn up apparently wanting to determine what opinions are and aren't allowed to be expressed...

Poor effort. Why "angry hat" exactly? I was simply disagreeing with you. And poor effort also at trying to turn around my comments to attempt to imply that I don't respect the opinions of others, when that is exactly what I was pointing out you are doing.

And (sigh) again, please explain how something's availability to the public at large to fulfil its function defines it as that thing. So apparently the Chiron is not a "car". It's a viewpoint that is, as I've said before, admirably zen. But not, and I'll use the word again, consensus, and perhaps needs argument elsewhere.

 

[Tornado]

I agree, there's too many silly restrictions on the cool wall, like my personal favourite "this car isn't allowed on the road, so it isn't cool and shouldn't be polled" even though the case with most of the cars on the cool wall is that they can't even do their cool things until they get to a racetrack, so what's the point?

That ship sailed over a year ago. Go build a bridge.

Quelle surprise, an immediate response. In fairness I hadn't seen the memo in a particular poll I didn't pay much attention to a couple of months ago. That's amazing? Really?

I'll remember to keep checking the nom post for further updates, though it might be cool to actually gauge everyones' reactions to such updates also.

You started your post with "Same old argument, and dead horse." With a straight face, you then proceeded to regurgitate the same argument you've been having with Famine for over three years now.

And poor effort also at trying to turn around my comments to attempt to imply that I don't respect the opinions of others

Because you don't. We already hashed this out back when you were whining about race cars on the cool wall.

 

[Tyger]

That ship sailed over a year ago. Go build a bridge.


You started your post with "Same old argument, and dead horse." With a straight face, you then proceeded to regurgitate the same argument you've been having with Famine for over three years now.



Because you don't. We already hashed this out back when you were whining about race cars on the cool wall.

OK other than the usual snarky, borderline abusive overtones of your "argument", you're quite right about the argument with Famine. What is your point exactly? He brings up the same argument that such cars don't exist, I continue to disagree, when the thread seems fair and has encouraged many other interesting, varied comments (yes other than yours, and Famine's)

And again, when somebody wades into a thread saying they don't agree that the car should even be polled, THEY are the ones not respecting others' opinions. The opinions in the thread should be about the subject, not its credibility in the first place. If I criticised peoples' opinions about the cars themselves (as you do on a daily basis, often in an incredibly condescending manner), that smacks of not respecting others' opinions. Please get that right. People in glass houses...

 

[MisterWaffles]

It's basically gotten to the point of "ban anything that doesn't have a production run". This wall is missing out on a lot of interesting material.

Also, @Famine . Stop treating the Chiron as if it's complete vapourware. The car exists, it's been tested on the track and road. It can drive under its own power. And no, the argument of "this car could be cancelled" isn't valid. It's way too far into development to turn back. It's basically entering the doorframe to being the car to replace the Veyron, so it is a road car and is therefore eligible for this thread.

 

[Famine]

Poor effort. Why "angry hat" exactly? I was simply disagreeing with you.

It appears that you were simply disagreeing with something you've invented, and not what I said at all. Otherwise your objections would have actually covered things I'd said...

In my universe wading into a thread just to berate someone for passing an opinion without making sure you're getting what they said right is not an act of calm rationality.

And poor effort also at trying to turn around my comments to attempt to imply that I don't respect the opinions of others, when that is exactly what I was pointing out you are doing.

That's interesting as I recall having discussions on this discussion forum with people about their opinions and mine, rather than telling them not to try to "enforce their own guidelines" for daring to have them.

As for your contribution... I'd say more the opposite of that.

To my mind, someone who discusses opinions is doing a better job of ''respecting' them than someone who only posts to shut dissenting opinions down while citing consensus...

And (sigh) again, please explain how something's availability to the public at large to fulfil it's function defines it as that thing.

In this case the thing isn't actually a thing yet, so that's pretty easy. It's difficult to fill any function if you don't exist...

So apparently the Chiron is not a "car".

Not only not a car, it's not anything. You can't touch one. You can't get in one. You can't see one. You can't photograph one. No-one can, because it doesn't exist. There's a very good reason the images are of the preproduction vehicles...

It's basically gotten to the point of "ban anything that doesn't have a production run". This wall is missing out on a lot of interesting material.

That's got literally nothing to do with anything said here. The decision on what to allow is that of the Cool Wall stewards.

Also, @Famine . Stop treating the Chiron as if it's complete vapourware.

I haven't done that at any point. I mean, I've actually sat in the car in the very first image...

The car exists, it's been tested on the track and road. It can drive under its own power.

That's factually wrong on all counts.

The preproduction cars - the ones that have been tested on the track and road and driven under their own power - are not part of the 500 car production run of the Bugatti Chiron (in fact last week I drove a preproduction example of a limited run car; there will be 400 of them and there are four preproduction models that all have a build number of 000/400 - they are not part of the 400 car production run). The Chiron does not yet exist - although I believe that they are in final evaluation right now for the build to start, so it won't be long.

I'm not sure why there's so much fuss over this pretty simple fact. The car everyone is voting on is not yet real and the pictures are not of it. If you're happy to vote for a car based on how cool you think it will be, good for you. I'm not and don't see the point of voting on things that aren't real yet. I don't really know why this needs objecting to.

It's basically entering the doorframe to being the car to replace the Veyron, so it is a road car and is therefore eligible for this thread.

Who said anything about it being eligible for a thread? That's up to the Cool Wall stewards.

 

[Tornado]

OK other than the usual snarky, borderline abusive overtones of your "argument", you're quite right about the argument with Famine. What is your point exactly?

That you're a hypocrite, calling out others for behavior that you're doing yourself and have done repeatedly in the past. I'll take this as an admittance on your part, though.

He brings up the same argument that such cars don't exist, I continue to disagree

All the while framing it as if him expressing his opinion is something that he should self-censor because he says it too often or too many others agree with it when you don't, but you repeating your arguments against him is fine.

many other interesting, varied comments (yes other than yours, and Famine's)

Not yours, though I'm sure.

And again, when somebody wades into a thread saying they don't agree that the car should even be polled, THEY are the ones not respecting others' opinions. The opinions in the thread should be about the subject, not its credibility in the first place.

I'd love to see the mental gymnastics required to explain this for this thread. Can you top the "people are just voting SU to force those cars off the cool wall"?

If I criticised peoples' opinions about the cars themselves (as you do on a daily basis, often in an incredibly condescending manner), that smacks of not respecting others' opinions. Please get that right. People in glass houses...

That's pretty much almost all you do in Cool Wall threads. In this thread alone you already told Famine to respect some consensus that's apparently been established and not express his opinion on the car. In previous ones, you've asked people to simply not vote in threads because weren't voting to your standards, and/or that their opinions on a topic aren't acceptable to express in threads anymore because they've been said too often, and/or claimed that people voting in a certain way were being deliberately insincere with their voting, and/or that people voting/posting a certain way are just tailcoat riding Famine (which is probably why you keep attempting to call him out over the issue).


Strangely, when I put names to faces for you and did all of the legwork for you to actually make your argument work, you didn't feel fit to call any of those people out.

 

[Tyger]

That you're a hypocrite, calling out others for behavior that you're doing yourself and have done repeatedly in the past. I'll take this as an admittance on your part, though.


All the while framing it as if him expressing his opinion is something that he should self-censor because he says it too often or too many others agree with it when you don't, but you repeating your arguments against him is fine.


Not yours, though I'm sure.




I'd love to see the mental gymnastics required to explain this for this thread. Can you top the "people are just voting SU to force those cars off the cool wall"?


That's pretty much almost all you do in Cool Wall threads. In this thread alone you already told Famine to respect some consensus that's apparently been established and not express his opinion on the car. In previous ones, you've asked people to simply not vote in threads because weren't voting to your standards, and/or that their opinions on a topic aren't acceptable to express in threads anymore because they've been said too often, and/or claimed that people voting in a certain way were being deliberately insincere with their voting, and/or that people voting/posting a certain way are just tailcoat riding Famine (which is probably why you keep attempting to call him out over the issue).


Strangely, when I put names to faces for you and did all of the legwork for you to actually make your argument work, you didn't feel fit to call any of those people out.

Gosh you really do tie yourself in knots don't you? I really think any mental gymnastics are on your part, on a daily basis. I just dip into these forums to have fun and see what's up. Good work on the legwork though, even if it proved very little at all. You are an A* at that.

"That's pretty much almost all you do in Cool Wall threads". No it isn't. I don't post on many threads here, and less so in the cool walls than I used to (hmm I wonder why) but my comments are still frequent and are nothing of the sort. I'm sure the mods will let your poisonous inaccurate little comment pass though, as ever.

And again your total non-argument that I am somehow imposing voting "standards" rather than doing the opposite and calling out people who don't like the initial nomination and rag on about that and therefore imply that any subsequent discussions about the car in question are pointless, thus pretty much disrespecting anyone who doesn't subscribe to that opinion, holds absolutely no water.

However what really irks me is people who go to almost ludicrous lengths to discredit others' opinions on cars in an utterly patronizing manner, whilst very rarely if ever offering a constructive opinion of their own. Sound familiar?

 

[Razor440]

After hearing, looking, and talking about the Veyron for a decade, I am pretty freaking happy that this sequel to the Veyron isn't that bad looking, and sounds pretty nice just looking at the specs. Might not look as good as a LaFerrari or a Regera, but still an interesting car.

Low Sub-Zero.

 

[McLaren]

So in effect this is still a concept or prototype car and the cars in the images are pre-production only. Which is why I'm wondering what the point of it being on the cool wall is.

You never questioned the Lunar Rover or any other concept/race cars being polled. You just added your opinion & called them seriously uncool. Of all the cars to start questioning the reasoning of being polled, why on a car that is well beyond the concept phase and enters production in just a couple months?

I'm not sure why there's so much fuss over this pretty simple fact. The car everyone is voting on is not yet real and the pictures are not of it. If you're happy to vote for a car based on how cool you think it will be, good for you. I'm not and don't see the point of voting on things that aren't real yet. I don't really know why this needs objecting to.

This is just arguing for the sake of it.

There is not going to be any sort of drastic change between the pre-production cars & the first client car that will change any of the views here. Half the opinions are based on the image these cars project to begin with.