NationStates Jolt Archive

A spin off from the most under-rated thread.

Chalk it up to an early childhood experience, but I think caviar is one at the top of the list of most over-rated things.

Others include

Crab Rangoon (crab and cream cheese pureed together, stuffed into a wonton and deep fried)
Shia LaBoef
Champagne (or any sparkling wine, really)
Truffles (the fungus, not the chocolates)

Cell phones.

Porsche. (That's right. I said it. :D)

Incredibly loud music/pipes. (People, seriously. You are not going to impress people by making their ears bleed.)

Loose change is pretty over-rated as well. Like pennies. Ever wonder why you find so many of them on the ground? Because people hate to carry useless change in their pocket. Fucking pennies are not lucky.

Big houses, why does it seem like everyone want to live in a big house? I'd rather live in a small log cabin and have lots of wooded land myself.

Big houses, why does it seem like everyone want to live in a big house? I'd rather live in a small log cabin and have lots of wooded land myself.

So they have room for their big TVs and their big children and whatever other big shit they pick up at their big box stores.

Anything churned out by Disney.

I'm sorry I can't name it - they have included it into the wordfilter list.

Incredibly loud music/pipes. (People, seriously. You are not going to impress people by making their ears bleed.)
This depends on the context. At a live performance, the music should be so loud you can't even think through the sound, otherwise it is just disappointing (if the volume bothers you, you can either not come or get ear plugs).
On the other hand, a lot of bars and clubs play music entirely too loud, and so do people in cars. I'd complain about next door neighbors/roommates, but since I'm that person as often as not, it would be rather hypocritical of me.

Cosmetics.

I have always found make-up to be highly over-rated and over-used.
You do not need it.
You can look great anyway.
It costs a fortune to remain "addicted" to it.
It often creates an unbalanced ph value in your skin.
You may look younger with it, but older when you stop using it. etc

Hmm, I seem to have something against it,
and should probably have included it in the "turn-off´s" thread.
Oh, well, nvm.

Jeans.
Just about everybody wears them, but why? Loose-fitting khakis are much more comfortable. Yeah, there are advantages to jeans (harder wearing, they don't look quite as silly when they start getting beat up), and I understand how some people could prefer them. But when did they become the unspoken dress code of the western world?

This depends on the context. At a live performance, the music should be so loud you can't even think through the sound, otherwise it is just disappointing (if the volume bothers you, you can either not come or get ear plugs).
On the other hand, a lot of bars and clubs play music entirely too loud, and so do people in cars. I'd complain about next door neighbors/roommates, but since I'm that person as often as not, it would be rather hypocritical of me.I meant in/on a wheeled vehicle. The only exception that I agree with is on motorcycles. People that drive seem to have this "I didn't see him!" problem.

At a concert, though, by all means, blast away.

Calling things over-rated.

*checks previous posts*

Barack Obama!

*runs like hell*

Ron Paul. *nods*

I meant in/on a wheeled vehicle. The only exception that I agree with is on motorcycles. People that drive seem to have this "I didn't see him!" problem.
Since cars today have sound insulation and music systems, you don't hear him anyway either, so all he does is annoy people on the street.



If going automotive, my pick: Automatic transmissions.

Most people who go for an auto have never even tried a manual, and choose it out of the fear that their whole driving experience will be about shifting gears. This is a complete myth. You only need to change gears a few times per trip, it's not bothering at all after a year of driving.

Also, there's no situation where one would reasonably need an automatic.
On cheap economical cars, automatics waste power, and you don't really have any to waste. They also cost more, weigh more, and waste fuel, being contrary to the very purpose of a cheap economical car.
On powerful cars, the main argument for an auto is usually that you need it to navigate in city jams. Well, that's total bollocks. On a powerful car, you can just put it in the second and not change until out of the tight traffic. You get more than enough acceleration and more than enough speed than you could get before crashing into the car in front of you.
And in highway driving, you can go first-second-last, this way you quickly reach the legal speed and can save your fuel and your engine for the rest of the way. Two shifts.

These techniques are usable on cheap cars of today too, not only powerful. There were times when engines had a narrow power band, so you needed to change all the time, and transmissions were crude, that was why they invented autos. These times are long past. Manual transmissions are very easy to use now, and very forgiving towards mistakes. A manual today is better in every situation.
If you think you need an automatic transmission, you should just practice with a manual and realize that you don't.

Since cars today have sound insulation and music systems, you don't hear him anyway either, so all he does is annoy people on the street.



If going automotive, my pick: Automatic transmissions.

Most people who go for an auto have never even tried a manual, and choose it out of the fear that their whole driving experience will be about shifting gears. This is a complete myth. You only need to change gears a few times per trip, it's not bothering at all after a year of driving.

Also, there's no situation where one would reasonably need an automatic.
On cheap economical cars, automatics waste power, and you don't really have any to waste. They also cost more, weigh more, and waste fuel, being contrary to the very purpose of a cheap economical car.
On powerful cars, the main argument for an auto is usually that you need it to navigate in city jams. Well, that's total bollocks. On a powerful car, you can just put it in the second and not change until out of the tight traffic. You get more than enough acceleration and more than enough speed than you could get before crashing into the car in front of you.
And in highway driving, you can go first-second-last, this way you quickly reach the legal speed and can save your fuel and your engine for the rest of the way. Two shifts.

These techniques are usable on cheap cars of today too, not only powerful. There were times when engines had a narrow power band, so you needed to change all the time, and transmissions were crude, that was why they invented autos. These times are long past. Manual transmissions are very easy to use now, and very forgiving towards mistakes. A manual today is better in every situation.
If you think you need an automatic transmission, you should just practice with a manual and realize that you don't.

I do have a standard transmission and I don't have power steering. I can think of a couple of situations where you it could be reasonable to have automatic transmission and power steering. 1. If you live in a city like San Francisco, with lots of steep hills, you're going to play havoc with a stick, an automatic is easier on car and driver in that situation. 2. If you're handicapped in some way, an automatic transmission may mean the difference between being able to drive or not (in my case, as my arthritis gets worse, I find that an automatic transmission and power steering are becoming more desirable). I'm sure others can think of more situations. I will say that in Colorado in the winter I prefer a stick.

Angelina Jolie
She's not attractive.

Porsche. (That's right. I said it. :D)

Lies. *nods*

Porsche.

QFT.
The idea of making a sports car with the same aerodynamics of a VW (the original Beetle) and with air cooling still in the '90s... yeuch.

Anyway cars are usually fairly overrated.

Also capitalism is usually quite overrated. Not so much anymore in the last 4 months, however.

I do have a standard transmission and I don't have power steering. I can think of a couple of situations where you it could be reasonable to have automatic transmission and power steering. 1. If you live in a city like San Francisco, with lots of steep hills, you're going to play havoc with a stick, an automatic is easier on car and driver in that situation.

? Strange, I would NEVER use an automatic transmission on steep roads - mainly because of motor braking. In the bloody traffic of Milan, though, I have to admit that it could be useful, expecially for people who have to drive a lot (taxi drivers etc).

I prefer NO ABS, and NO automatic shift. Call me a retrograde, but I prefer being in full control myself.

Most people who go for an auto have never even tried a manual, and choose it out of the fear that their whole driving experience will be about shifting gears.
That's on your side of the pond. On this side, the standard is manual transmission - and of course the exam for driving license is on manual shift.

Gambling, guns, faith, and fast food

Bears.

...explosions in films and special effects generally.

Religion.
And coffee.

What people call freedom*.

*Yes, I aknowledge that nothing such as freedom really exists in the human sphere.

The Xbox 360, good games that can also be found on PC, and the red ring of death
The Wii, too many gimicky shovelware games, nintendo releasing half assed games
The PS3, too expensive, not many games to justify buying it

Led Zeppelin.

Jeans.
Just about everybody wears them, but why? Loose-fitting khakis are much more comfortable. Yeah, there are advantages to jeans (harder wearing, they don't look quite as silly when they start getting beat up), and I understand how some people could prefer them. But when did they become the unspoken dress code of the western world?

Jeans have become meaningless.

Jeans used to be like a merit badge sash: Showing all your dubious achievements and speaking of your character and commitment. Jeans came in dark blue and were pristine and through the course of play, work, play, mischief, play, work, and more play, they became faded, stained, distressed and torn. I should have known the end was near when I was still in my late teens and pre-faded jeans started to hit the market. Still, it was easy to tell who had bought them and who had lived in them.

Now, you can buy jeans like this: http://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10901_455331_-1_12236_12202

It's an insult to manhood. :mad:

Calling things over-rated.

Yay! :D

Religion is the most overrated thing in the world. FF7 isn't even close.

Dance clubs.... around my area anyway. Drinks are way too expensive to just check out bleach blonde chicks that all look the same.

And Honda Civics.

Jeans have become meaningless.

Jeans used to be like a merit badge sash: Showing all your dubious achievements and speaking of your character and commitment. Jeans came in dark blue and were pristine and through the course of play, work, play, mischief, play, work, and more play, they became faded, stained, distressed and torn. I should have known the end was near when I was still in my late teens and pre-faded jeans started to hit the market. Still, it was easy to tell who had bought them and who had lived in them.

Now, you can buy jeans like this: http://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10901_455331_-1_12236_12202

It's an insult to manhood. :mad:
Jeans that look like something I stopped wearing 'cause it wore through? Why would anyone pay $100 for 'em?

As for overrated, family. Bunch of fucking moochers.

Jeans have become meaningless.

Jeans used to be like a merit badge sash: Showing all your dubious achievements and speaking of your character and commitment. Jeans came in dark blue and were pristine and through the course of play, work, play, mischief, play, work, and more play, they became faded, stained, distressed and torn. I should have known the end was near when I was still in my late teens and pre-faded jeans started to hit the market. Still, it was easy to tell who had bought them and who had lived in them.

Now, you can buy jeans like this: http://www.abercrombie.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10901_455331_-1_12236_12202

It's an insult to manhood. :mad:

Well from the looks of this, all my $20 jeans have now gone up in value. How is that over-rated? It does remind me of this little video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4tw6vBbwVY) however.:tongue:

Twilight (and all the other books)

The Harry Potter Movies

Shia LeBeouf

Julia Roberts (always has been as always will be)

Blu-Ray DVDs



...to name a few things.

Alcohol.

Drugs.

Alcodrugs.

Star Wars.

Star Trek. (The Trekkie within weeps...)

Um...other...stuff...

Also, it's not Blu-Ray DVDs. It's Blu-Ray discs. Blu-Ray and DVD are two different formats. I've seen more than a few people say Blu-Ray DVD, and it annoys me.

As I said in the underrated thread, people ten to overrate or underrate me.

The idea of making a sports car with the same aerodynamics of a VW (the original Beetle) and with air cooling still in the '90s... yeuch.
But it works.
The Porsche 911 shape allows for great view out of the cockpit (the road isn't obscured by the hood), and looks very classic. The air-cooled engines were light and simple, they never broke down; the new ones aren't quite as good.
Also, Porsche 911 is more aerodynamic than Toyota Prius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient#Typical_values_and_examples) (0.28 vs 0.29). In your face, Slowpoke!


They're doing it on purpose. The Porsche says, "While you were doing your aerodynamic experiments and invented new engines, we've been making the same model for 45 years - and our cars are still the fastest, and we still win more races than any of you!"

Isn't that humiliating, to spend a fortune developing your new revolutionary model, clad in carbon fibre - only to get lapped by a sporty version of Beetle?



2. If you're handicapped in some way, an automatic transmission may mean the difference between being able to drive or not
Agreed. That is a perfectly valid reason for an auto, no doubt about that. That's where an automatic is really needed.
The criticism is towards the people who are not handicapped, just too lazy to throw the stick a couple times. They say it makes them concentrate on driving the car. Well, that's what you should concentrate on when on the road - not your cell phone, makeup, car TV or porn mag.

2. If you're handicapped in some way, an automatic transmission may mean the difference between being able to drive or not
Agreed. That is a perfectly valid reason for an auto, no doubt about that. That's where an automatic is really needed.
The criticism is towards the people who are not handicapped, just too lazy to throw the stick a couple times. They say it makes them concentrate on driving the car. Well, that's what you should concentrate on when on the road - not your cell phone, makeup, car TV or porn mag.


---

Anyway, if going on specific cars, the most overrated car ever: Bugatti Veyron.
It's not the most powerful or the fastest car, just the most powerful from a big manufacturer (Volkswagen).
It's just fat.
It's doesn't look good, it looks just like an oversized flattened Beetle.
And it's fat.
It's not a good driver's car. The ultimate driver's car is and will be McLaren F1*. Veyron will always the ultimate footballer's wife's car.
And it's fat.
It's not very fast, it got beaten by cars costing 20 times less. Have you seen it 'round the Top Gear track? Look how pathetically it struggled with its air brake when trying to set a new course - and the difficulty of that ordeal is why it lost.
Because it's fat.
It's not capable to compete at all, in fact, because a car weighing 2 metric tons is not fit for track duty. Overweight cars wear out their tires on the first lap and get owned on consequent ones.
And Volkswagen Veyron is not merely overweight, it's morbidly obese.

It's not even a sports car, it's a show car. Just a way to show you have more money than you know what to do with. Well, then, why not just have your butler throw around hundred dollar bills?



---

*McLaren's top speed might be lower by 12 mph, but it doesn't need spoiler retraction and an enormous straight to reach it. And if it had a 7-speed gearbox, it would surpass Veyron, but they mounted a 6-speed stick, because it's a car for driving, not records. And in how many other cars does the driver sit in the center? Now that's one cool thing.

-snip-

Wasn't the Veyron's top speed topped by the SSC Aero?

Wasn't the Veyron's top speed topped by the SSC Aero?
Yes, and pretty quickly. It was just a matter of wanting to do it.


That's not mentioning how many tuned cars can go faster.
A top speed 250mph isn't too difficult to reach, record cars did it in the 1930s, tuners in the 1980s. It's just utterly pointless, because there's no track where you'd ever need it.

Yes, and pretty quickly. It was just a matter of wanting to do it.


That's not mentioning how many tuned cars can go faster.
A top speed 250mph isn't too difficult to reach, record cars did it in the 1930s, tuners in the 1980s. It's just utterly pointless, because there's no track where you'd ever need it.

We're talking about production cars here. Not tuned ones.

And if it had a 7-speed gearbox, it would surpass Veyron, but they mounted a 6-speed stick, because it's a car for driving, not records.

Dude, that's some revision. It very much was a car built for records. It was built specifically for records (and for McLaren to celebrate F1 dominance, but by the time it hit the road that had vanished). When it was made it held the record, and kept that record until the Veyron hit the road. The McLaren designers did the same thing that Veyron designers did when the held the record that insured that it would only be held momentarily, said their record would never be broken.

The Bugatti, holding true to it's essentially borrowed marque, was built for civility and speed with as few compromises to both as possible, which is how a car as 'porky' as you continue to criticize it as is as fast as it is.

Now, I don't really like super cars myself. In order to get them road legal and even barely marginal as a street car they have to make compromises to their on track performance, but in order to achieve 'super car' status they have to sacrifice a great deal of driving civility. So what happens is you have a car that is touchy and ill suited for traffic so you can drive it to a track on occasion where it is bloated equally clunky. Ask any real driver and you'll eventually hear the phrase, "It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow." On a pure driver's experience level, more grins per mile would be had trying to carve up the road from Half Moon Bay to Highway 1 in an old MG TC with 100hp and bicycle tires then a steroid riddled super car that never gets out of second gear.

If I want to go fast on the track, a race car is the weapon of choice. Even a 'lowly' Formula Vee is going to give purer thrills than a show pony super car. If it's a matter of trying to have my cake and eat it too, the best level of compromise is something like the Porsche GT3, and even that might be a little too much on the teeth rattly side. But give me a Triumph TR-3 or Sunbeam Tiger or a 356 (or hell, even a '73 911 RSR...actually, pleasepleaseplease give me a '73 911 RSR, I'll be your best friend) and I'll wear my face muscles out from all the smiling. And I may never even manage to break the speed limit.

Religion is the most overrated thing in the world. FF7 isn't even close.

FF7 is highly overrated within the FF series.

FF7 is highly overrated within the FF series.

not as overrated as FFX was.

*edit* FF7 was the last great Final Fantasy game.

FF is highly overrated.

FF is highly overrated.

Especially JRPGs.

Finland.

The Chronicles Of Narnia films....

We're talking about production cars here. Not tuned ones.
SSC Aero is a production car.



BTW, it's silly and short-sighted to ignore tuned cars when discussing records and results. Every car is tuned before going into any actual competition. Furthermore, there's such a thing as factory-tuned cars. A factory can tune its car squarely for the track, sell it this way, and beat track records. It will appear like a huge achievement, while in reality all they've done is torquing a few bolts stiffer, changing some numbers in the ECU, and throwing out some luxuries.
That's why one has to also take tuned cars into account when looking at new records, to assess whether it's indeed a huge achievement or merely something no one else bothered with.

Finland.

This raised a question: how much is Finland appreciated?

The U.S. is the most overrated country.

Dude, that's some revision. It very much was a car built for records.
Well, I phrased it wrong... Yes, it was built to be the best, and yes, they had beating all records in mind. But it wasn't a car built "To have 1000hp and 400kmh". It was built around driving and competition, not two arbitrary figures to impress the press.

They could make its top speed higher, its limited by maximum revs in 6th gear, the car has the power to go faster. They just decided that enough is enough and didn't bother - you can't have more than 6 gears in a stick manual, and setting the 6th low would make it less sporty. But change the cogs and you could get more speed.


The Bugatti, holding true to it's essentially borrowed marque, was built for civility and speed with as few compromises to both as possible, which is how a car as 'porky' as you continue to criticize it as is as fast as it is.
It has a high top speed. Having a high top speed on a straight and being fast is not the same. Speed should be assessed on a track, not on a special circuit for achieving top speed, where the customers' cars will never be taken.

Veyron is not trackworthy - and that is the end to all that's to be said about it. It's way too heavy. That can't be fixed. Other supercars only need some suspension tuning and a tire change. Tracks are not all Porsches and tracksters, they have true supercars as well. Ferraris go on the track, Lambos go on the track, Veyrons don't.

So if you're building a car that's too heavy to be performance driven anyway, that has problems turning and no race endurance, why bother with "speed"?
Answer: No reason. Just for the show. It's not a car for people who want the thrill of speed and cornering. It's a car for people who want a way to show they have a lot of money.


If I want to go fast on the track, a race car is the weapon of choice. That's why they have groups. Regular sports cars compete too, in their group. Not everyone wants to drive a truck to the track and change there into the trackster. There are pure competition machines, and there are machines to get fun every day and on all occasions: sports cars.

This raised a question: how much is Finland appreciated?

More than it deserves.

Well, I phrased it wrong... Yes, it was built to be the best, and yes, they had beating all records in mind. But it wasn't a car built "To have 1000hp and 400kmh". It was built around driving and competition, not two arbitrary figures to impress the press.

They could make its top speed higher, its limited by maximum revs in 6th gear, the car has the power to go faster. They just decided that enough is enough and didn't bother - you can't have more than 6 gears in a stick manual, and setting the 6th low would make it less sporty. But change the cogs and you could get more speed.
Again with the revision. McLaren had no intention of competing with the F1, it was and is a show pony. It was a costumer that eventually put it on the track with a great deal of finessing, starting the 'one upsmanship' that became the FIA GT-1 series that collapsed under its own weight after the F1 led to the Porsche GT-1 which lead to the CLK-GTR which led to the Toyota GT-One and everyone saying Group C was back. Ron Dennis isn't know for being a 'reserved' cat, they made that car as fast as they reasonably could and if they could have found an extra mile or two, they would have. Like the car, many people do, but put away the lute.



It has a high top speed. Having a high top speed on a straight and being fast is not the same. Speed should be assessed on a track, not on a special circuit for achieving top speed, where the customers' cars will never be taken.

Veyron is not trackworthy - and that is the end to all that's to be said about it. It's way too heavy. That can't be fixed. Other supercars only need some suspension tuning and a tire change. Tracks are not all Porsches and tracksters, they have true supercars as well. Ferraris go on the track, Lambos go on the track, Veyrons don't.

So if you're building a car that's too heavy to be performance driven anyway, that has problems turning and no race endurance, why bother with "speed"?
Answer: No reason. Just for the show. It's not a car for people who want the thrill of speed and cornering. It's a car for people who want a way to show they have a lot of money.
You look at the history of performance cars through a tube. You even mention cars that did 250 in the 30s without somehow understanding the context, and then creating some sort of fantasy about the F1 being pure and not tainted by the some of the same things you accuse the Veyron of.

There used to be a track (that exists still to this day as a highway that I totally drove on) in Germany that was essentially nothing but a venue for cars to go extraordinarily fast and where those cars from the '30s performed that feat. The truth of the matter is that very few cars do everything well. For that matter, fast isn't the same thing to all people. Comfortable isn't generally fast, acceleration is often traded for top speed, etc. What's fast to a guy in a '70 Hemi Cuda isn't the same to the guy in the Caterham which isn't the same to guy in Trophy Truck and on and on. You can throw as big a tizzy fit as you want, but ultimately it's about preference even if you want to pretend it's about some sort of empirical standard.

And Lambos go on the track for like, half a day before those fragile beasts break a nail and their owners end up having to trailer their supposed road queen anyway.

That's why they have groups. Regular sports cars compete too, in their group. Not everyone wants to drive a truck to the track and change there into the trackster. There are pure competition machines, and there are machines to get fun every day and on all occasions: sports cars.

So then, you didn't read that whole thing about sports cars in my post? Did you just get to furious fingers when you saw the sentence and decided to step in it? Good job. The race car comment was in relation to the blathering on about track performance in relation to super cars and that if it's that important I'm not going to want something that sputters its way to the track in traffic just so I can say I drove it there. Make sure you understand the context of the sentences you choose to respond to.

I'd say U2 are over-rated.

Again with the revision. McLaren had no intention of competing with the F1, it was and is a show pony.
It's not a show pony and never was. F1 has always been intended as a car for driving above all else. And when its track ability was seen, McLaren built competition versions. On its own, for its not customer-tuned.


Ron Dennis isn't know for being a 'reserved' cat, they made that car as fast as they reasonably could and if they could have found an extra mile or two, they would have.
They could, according to the test drivers. The car has a reserve of power at its top speed. It could go faster with a seventh gear or a different 6th ratio.


And Lambos go on the track for like, half a day before those fragile beasts break a nail and their owners end up having to trailer their supposed road queen anyway.
That's not exactly so. Some do break down, of course. But they're at least able to compete there, even if they're on the very edge between a still track-worthy car and a show one.


The race car comment was in relation to the blathering on about track performance in relation to super cars
Because it is important. A supercar is something that feels like it's a racing car, that is built for fun and performance, that can go on the track, yet can be driven on the road. Supercars aren't for trips to the grocery shop, not for getting from A to B, they are designed to be driven for fun above all else.

A supercar is not a comfy road car with a big engine. We have a name for that beast too. They're called muscle cars.

not as overrated as FFX was.

FFX sucked.

*edit* FF7 was the last great Final Fantasy game.

I thought 9 was fun. Better music, too.

I'd say "classic rock" is overrated. And rock in general - there are exceptional bands, but the genre is way overrated. Same with rap and R&B.

It's not a show pony and never was. F1 has always been intended as a car for driving above all else. And when its track ability was seen, McLaren built competition versions. On its own, for its not customer-tuned.
At the behest of costumers Ray Bellm and Thomas Bscher who wanted to race in BPR Global GT and needed a spec legal model. And it's very nearly the definition of a show pony, it was an extremely limited production car meant to showcase the McLaren Formula 1 team and its engine partner BMW. Look, I'm telling you, there's no shame in liking car, but really need to hang up the lute.



They could, according to the test drivers. The car has a reserve of power at its top speed. It could go faster with a seventh gear or a different 6th ratio.
Oh, well if the test drivers said it...

Look man, there's more to going fast than adding teeth.



That's not exactly so. Some do break down, of course. But they're at least able to compete there, even if they're on the very edge between a still track-worthy car and a show one.
When I see one compete that doesn't have to be hobbled home before the day is over I'll let you know.



Because it is important. A supercar is something that feels like it's a racing car, that is built for fun and performance, that can go on the track, yet can be driven on the road. Supercars aren't for trips to the grocery shop, not for getting from A to B, they are designed to be driven for fun above all else.

A supercar is not a comfy road car with a big engine. We have a name for that beast too. They're called muscle cars.
I've already addressed this. If you didn't want to read it the first time I don't know why I'd bother typing it a second.

At the behest of costumers Ray Bellm and Thomas Bscher who wanted to race in BPR Global GT and needed a spec legal model. And it's very nearly the definition of a show pony, it was an extremely limited production car meant to showcase the McLaren Formula 1 team and its engine partner BMW.
Limited production doesn't make it a show car. F1 cars have a "run" of no more than a few, they're still not show cars.

A show car is a car that's designed for the buyers to show off, above other priorities.


Oh, well if the test drivers said it...
Look man, there's more to going fast than adding teeth.
I consider the test drivers (not just McLaren's) quite a sufficient authority on the car they've tested. If they say it could go faster with another gear or a different ratio, it is so.
And since it's got a higher power-to-weight ratio than Veyron, it's perfectly reasonable from the theoretical point of view too.


When I see one compete that doesn't have to be hobbled home before the day is over I'll let you know.
Better let me know when you see a Veyron even try at all.


I've already addressed this.
And I've replied to it. There's more to being a supercar than high price and a big engine.
It might not actually go on a track, but it has to feel like it belongs there.

i'm gonna say it... the ipod, and possibly the iphone, though that is pretty cool

edit: and the Beatles, and Fawlty Towers

And I've replied to it.

Keep telling yourself that...


Anyway, arguing the merits of limited production $1million cars as threadjack has slid us into a slightly sadder catagory than even the vaunted Picard/Kirk nonsense so I'm going to take whats left of my self respect and shuffle off saving my performance car discussions for people with less hints of dick measuring involved in the process.

Anyway, arguing the merits of limited production $1million cars as threadjack has slid us into a slightly sadder catagory than even the vaunted Picard/Kirk nonsense
Yes, it is so. But the question is, how come you even know what a Volkswagen Veyron is? Why do you need to know, and why do you care?
That's why I say it's overrated, it's so hyped up that not only me or you, but people without any interest in cars know about it and fap at it like if it was the ninth wonder.


Anyway, every thread needs some car in it, but this one has enough for the moment.
Moving on to the most overrated non-automotive thing on the world:

Westboro Baptist Church.

World of Warcraft.

Trousers.

Twilight.

Love.

Christmas.

God.

Life.

*checks previous posts*

Barack Obama!

*runs like hell*

Ron Paul. *nods*

Both.

FFX sucked.


No shit, I hated that damn game. 8 was the worst. I stopped playing it when I realized I made it to the last disc just so I could get better cards for that triad game.


I thought 9 was fun. Better music, too.


9 was fun, but I didn't care much for the characters, I cared more for them in 7. Especially Aerith, and they fucking killed her!
....I'm over it I swear.



I'd say "classic rock" is overrated. And rock in general - there are exceptional bands, but the genre is way overrated. Same with rap and R&B.

Classic Rock is overrated, but thanks to the radio it is possible.

Yes, it is so. But the question is, how come you even know what a Volkswagen Veyron is? Why do you need to know, and why do you care?
Because I've seen four of them in person (two at the track, for what that's worth), because I follow Ferdinand Piech from the creation of the legendary Porsche 917 and him leaving Porsche because he was too focused on racing, I've been to the Autostadt in Wolfsburg, for three years covered one of the premiere collectible car events for the SPEED network...I could go on...


That's why I say it's overrated, it's so hyped up that not only me or you, but people without any interest in cars know about it and fap at it like if it was the ninth wonder.

Yeah, they should have created a million dollar show piece car and actually told people about it. What bastards. If they had just kept it to themselves and not used it to advance the brand, that would have made total sense.

People know about for the same reason that 14 year old boys have putting up torn out pages of car magazines on their walls since the Lamborghini Muira. Aspiration isn't anymore new or novel than posers wanking on and on about which one is 'better.'

A menage-a-trois.

Vastly over-rated.

Religion.

Yes.

And coffee.

Slut. :p

Led Zeppelin.

Yes yes yes yes

Alcohol.

Lies.

Drugs.

Damned lies.

Alcodrugs.

Statistics


Star Wars.

Star Trek. (The Trekkie within weeps...)

I cut you.

Anyway, I have to say, I find exercise to be overrated. That "runners high" people talk about? Unless thats "throwing up" I dont think it exists:p