TRDFantasy

That's a matter of opinion it seems. Supercars are pointless in the sense that you are taking about. However that doesn't change the fact that thanks to supercars, the auto industry has progressed forward. Some modern-day technology that mass market cars have are thanks to race cars and supercars.

For example, want to guess where Honda's VTEC technology originated from? Knowledge and expertise gained in F1 racing.

A lot of modern technology and features on Porsche models these days originated from the Porsche 959 supercar.

If Honda had never participated in F1, and if Porsche had never participated so much in racing and had not made the 959, the automotive market would be quite different today.

supercars ARE pointless. fun to own, sure, although i think most would be like marrying a supermodel - the novelty soon wears off and they cost a fortune.

Yes, but my point still stands about how they have helped push the auto industry forward.

I think you need to learn more about the history of the NSX and Honda. NSX helped Honda A LOT. The NSX gave Honda a lot of experience with VTEC and high-performance engines, as well as chassis dynamics, suspension, the list goes on.

Thanks to the knowledge learned from the NSX, and the halo effect of the model Honda made more high-performance models afterwords which really changed their reputation. Originally thanks to the NSX, Honda gained a strong sporty reputation in the UK.

The NSX got A LOT of people talking about Honda, and Honda capitalized on that with various performance models of different models which is how Honda achieved the sporty aspect of its reputation that it has today.

Quite ironic. Either this rant has to be sarcasm or a joke, or he's lost it a bit.

IS-SV

X6 and ZDX are certainly pointless when considered alone for mass production, not valid business propositions. But the reality is the commonality with other higher volume vehicles in the automakers lineup, make the production of them viable given the complete business model of the automakers (BMW and Acura).

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

granted, but was the nsx necessary for vtec to make it to mainstream hondas? i don't think so. but it's all speculation.

thanks.

i think it helped honda some, but not "A LOT". the nsx had what, a 270hp engine, and the legend GS (which I *OWNED*) had 230hp. as for chassis dynamics, honda doesn't even make a single rear wheel drive vehicle today, so it's hard to see how the nsx contributed in any way. about suspension, they had lightweight double-wishbone suspensions LONG before the nsx. the list doesn't go on.

again, don't get me wrong, i think the nsx was awesome, especially in the huge amount of aluminum used in its construction, BUT NONE OF THAT translated to other models.

what high performance models?

i think that's very speculative. they had the first prelude around 1981, considered sporty in its day. i owned the 2nd gen prelude in 1983, again considered sporty, and looooong before an NSX.

mikez

I guess no one has heard that the existence of supercars is the explanation behind extinction of the dinosaurs?

TommyJames

I've sat here for the longest time trying to decide if I should respond to James May's brain-dead article or not. Given that it's the middle of the night and I can't sleep, I'll give it a shot.

I'm the former CEO of a software company. I'm now sort of retired. Our software ALWAYS found its first customers on the high end products before it made it into high-volume mainstream products. After a lot of hard work from some very talented engineers, our software found its way in Bang & Olufsen before we were in the iPhone. Why?

It has to do with several factors, first is cost/volume and second has to do with the very nature of low volume where you need low production to actually build your test bed, and prove your market. In the case of B&O over other more mainstream products, there just weren't enough chips available to do what our software did at the time so the silicon was very expensive. It simply couldn't be built fast enough to enter main stream and this is common. At the same time, factories don't want to build for the masses unless a market is proven so consequently super cars are often the proving ground for other products. It also has to do with early adoption and that the typical super car buyer is willing to try something a little more unusual. The LFA comes to mind. By nature super cars and any high end cars get the latest technology because mass producing cutting-edge technologies can be tricky.

Think of all the options that are now standard in entry level cars that begin at the very high end, such as power windows, GPS, electric sun roofs, high performance motors, traction control, etc., all began at the high end. Do you know that one of the very first cars to have carbon fiber was actually the Lamborghini Countach? The McLaren F1 was the first to use it in an entire body and the technology is now reaching mainstream auto manufacturers, first in small bits but soon in much larger structures.

As for solving hunger, etc., I can't even begin to tell you how many brilliant people I've met, people who make amazing contributions to society who held up some exotic as their reward for their inspiration and achievement. You don't see that many music videos using Hondas! They use cool cars BECAUSE they are a symbol of achievement and they do inspire.

By the time we sold our company our software was running on over a billion chips. That's a huge number and it was a hell of a lot of very hard work, at all hours of the day and night. All the time I was practically killing myself working crazy hours, I promised myself I'd buy an exotic when it was time to sell the company and just go driving and that's exactly what I did. Who knows how many scientists, authors, designers, doctors, do what they do because they are inspired by those things they desire in life, some of which happens to be cars.

His statement as an author proves his own narrow-minded thinking more than anything. The REAL reason this guy wrote this article is because he's searching for his own personal relevance in life. Nothing more. One could ask the same thing of him, what's his great contribution to greater good? (The truth is we don't really know.) By making such a statement, he can make it seem like he's above it all, that he's somehow more enlightened when all he's done is prove to me that he's an ignorant fool.

TRDFantasy

Arguably, yes it was necessary for VTEC to become mainstream in Honda V6 engines, and also necessary for Honda to progress their mainstream V6 engines.

A lot of what Honda knows about V6 engines goes back to the NSX.

In terms of chassis dynamics, I am referring to chassis rigidity. The NSX was also the first Honda to have titanium connecting rods, electric power steering, 4 channel independent ABS, and of course VTEC on a V6.

The NSX, as a competitive benchmark, also influenced the design of the McLaren F1. That is another reason why Honda has had a strong sporty reputation in the UK.

Also, the Legend GS came out years after the NSX. I think it's quite likely some of the knowledge learned from the NSX was applied to the Legend GS.

All high-performance Hondas released pretty much after 1992. Si, SiR, and Type R models released since then. A lot of Honda Si and Type R models benefited from what Honda learned with the NSX. The NSX was the application of some things that Honda had learned from F1, and as I said some of the technology and knowledge learned with the NSX project was applied to later Honda projects.

Then there is the S2000; a lot of what was learned from the NSX was applied to this car. The same chief engineer made the S2000 as the NSX.

Also, the chief engineer of the NSX and S2000 worked on the DC2 and DC5 Integra Type-Rs.

So there you go. Since 1992, the sportiest and highest-performing Honda production models ALL have a connection that goes back to the NSX.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

great post, that's all i can say