alpines
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Sports cars](comments on their nature)

To: jan.eyerman@usa.net
Subject: Re: [Sports cars](comments on their nature)
From: "" <davidkellogg@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 19:17:12
Hello Jan,

  How are you doing?

  A comment about Bugattis:  it's my feeling, having worked on quite a 
number of them, and having ridden in a fair number as well, that the 
influence of sports car design is present in most Bugattis, partly due to 
the constraints of engineering costs.  By this I mean that an entirely new 
engine or suspension was impractical for Bugatti to design and tool up when 
they considered the 'consumer' --as contrasted to the racing-- market.

  Thus models like the Type 40, the 44, the 57's and some of the later coupe 
permutations, as well as the Royales, carried lower performance versions of 
engines which were initially designed for the specific demands of racing.  
Their road manners were mixed, but their heart (the engine),usually their 
handling, and their esthetics distinguished them from other cars of the 
time.

  As an asided,Bugatti's adaptation, rather re-designing components for a 
specific car led to dire consequences.  The Type 39 racecar, for example, 
used components already in production with fatal results. An FIA rule change 
in 1932 permitted larger displacement for GP engines.  The Type 39's larger 
engine *was* a power phenomenon, but the front springs, and suspension/brake 
system as a whole, were not adequately enlarged to handle the increase in 
weight caused by the super-charged DOHC straight eight.  This model was 
nicknamed "The Coffin" because, to a greater extent than any other Bugatti, 
it killed more drivers than it won races.

  Were these other models sports cars?  That depends:  relative to 
everything else on the road, they were superior in many aspects of design, 
but they were neither conceived nor executed as 'sporting cars' in a pure 
sense. The models mentioned above, and a couple of others were thus, in my 
mind, sporting cars more by virtue of their provenance than their state of 
tune or road performance.

  What distinguished the Bugattis from virtually all other cars was the 
ineffably beautiful sculptural skills brought to the design of even the 
[invisible] internal engine parts, and the ingenuity of their "tabula rasa" 
engineering.  Ettore and his crew simply reinvented everything, including 
the wheel.  Their design for a clutch mechanism looks more like an 
horological or astrological instrument from the 18th century than like an 
automotive part intended for mass prodution. They were other-worldly in 
appearance, slightly temperamental in long-term application, but 
mind-bending in conception.  Check one out if ever you have a chance:  
they're a phemonenon unto themselves, to the eye and to the sense of 
quality.

  But just as you say, the Bugattis were above and beyond the also-rans of 
their era.  That's part of the reason their following is so dedicated, but 
also why owning a Bugatti is more than ever before, an undertaking of the 
very wealthy or the uninitiated.  Nothing quite satisfies in the same way, 
still there are other cars of exquisite character and qualities.  It depends 
upon preference, and I find it difficult to learn the intricasies of the 
espteric marques without taking a great deal of time.  Pleasant though that 
is, it's also frustrating.

  I would like very much to own a 1930's vintage racecar, but at 6'7" am 
restricted from almost everything built in that period.
That's another story, however.

  with Best Wishes,

  David Kellogg
  previously with Competition Motors, Bugatti Specialists
  '67 Series V Alpine racecar
  '57 Jabro Junior
_________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [Sports cars](comments on their nature),  <=