Bugatti's Latest Veyron, Most Ridiculous Car on the Planet? 790
Wired has an amusing writeup that accurately captures the most recent ridiculous addition to Bugatti's automobile catalog. The $2.1 million Veyron sports over 1,000 horsepower, a 16-cylinder engine, and a top speed of 245 mph. The guilty conscience comes for free. "That same cash-filled briefcase could buy seven Ferrari 599s or every single 2009 model Mercedes. You could snap up a top-shelf Maybach and employ a chauffeur until well past the apocalypse. Hell, in this economy, $2.1 million is probably enough to make you a one-man special-interest group with some serious Washington clout."
Hell yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hell yeah! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure where you got that it's supposed to be the fastest car on earth from. It's not -- it's supposed to be the fastest *road legal* car on earth.
Re:Hell yeah! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure where you got the "fastest *road legal* car on earth", because the post that I was replying to didn't mention road or legal or even car.
But well, this is /. after all where we argue about pointless points (myself included).
I could mention that the Veyron appears to have been superseded as the fastest road legal car [wikipedia.org] a few years ago, but that would spoil all our fun.
Re:Hell yeah! (Score:4, Funny)
But well, this is /. after all where we argue about pointless points (myself included).
I must disagree with that
Re:Hell yeah! (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks. From now on, for any car I buy I'm going to calculate a constant times the storage space divided by the top speed. I mean, given our knowledge, how can you commit to a car without knowing its bandwidth?
Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Top Gear had an episode some time ago where they opened this beast up on the 5 mile+ straight at Volkswagen's German test facility. So damned fast - 407 kph!
From the episode: "At this speed, the tires will disintegrate in 15 minutes - That's ok, we've only got enough fuel for 12"
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Informative)
They also demonstrated the silliest thing about it, or any 200+ MPH car... It takes quite a while to get to those speeds. You may get 0-60 in 3 seconds, but the acceleration drops off rather rapidly. About the only place you can get a car like that up to speed *is* a test track with an enormous straight.
I think it must have been 8 miles or more because they commented that the far end was out of sight due to the Earth's curvature!
A guy tried driving a super-Ferrari (an Enzo, I think) like that here in Southern California a few years back. yeah, You guessed it. Mr. Supercar? Meet Mr. Telephone Pole. Sadly, the dumbass driving it survived.
Another show mentioned how fragile they are. When they are featured on a show or test track, supercar makers box them up like ancient relics and ship them there. Contrast to the episode with the McClaren SLK that was simply driven to the filming site from two countries away.
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
I can testify to that. My car is right around 4 seconds 0-60. I can jump ahead of just about anyone up through about 120mph. Pushing through 140, it's pushing. I've only accelerated just through 150, but ran out of road. A lot of the high speed numbers are worthless, because they'll never be reached.
They say in the article, "...you can outrun not only the 5-0's cruisers, but their helicopters, too. If they wanna catch you, they're gonna have to dust off Airwolf...", but that's sensationalized journalism. Like I said, I've been up through 150mph, or 220 feet per second. Driving along at a mile every 24 seconds has it's drawbacks, like a 5 mile stretch takes 118 seconds to cross. What was a nice long straight stretch of road suddenly becomes very very short. What should take 5 minutes to drive at the speed limit is gone less than 2 minutes. God forbid that you're driving on land, where animals may wander across the road, or a car may come out of a side street. It's not like you're going to swerve without some serious side effects.
I ran across a neat video on YouTube where a motorcycle driver was running from the police. Sure, they couldn't keep up, because he'd zip away in no time. Max air speed for an good unladen police helicopter (no extra equipment, seats, and minimal fuel) is 150mph. If they're carrying their normal equipment and enough fuel to follow with, that drops. He was doing over 150mph, and the helicopter kept up pretty nicely. Why? Because despite the fact that he was able to pull away from the helicopter at points, the helicopter didn't have to follow the road, encounter traffic, nor slow down for intersections. He was driving fast, he wasn't suicidal. A bend in the road creates a shorter intercept route for the helicopter to follow.
If they're really after you, it doesn't matter how fast you're going. They may radio ahead and say to set up a roadblock, which sometimes can be avoided, but it's hard to avoid a shoulder to shoulder nail strip. 4 flat tires will keep you from getting away, no matter how fast your car was. That nail strip can mean a fatality when you hit it, if you're going way too fast.
Do I speed as a daily thing? Nope. I cruise right about the speed limit, depending on conditions. My high speeds have been on tracks, where they belong. I know my car is really fast, so I don't have to prove it to anyone. Even if it's a kid with a Honda Civic and a coffee can for a muffler. :) I'm at the "why bother" phase of my life. Do I need to burn up extra fuel just to prove that I can go faster than him? Not really. It's not worth wasting my fuel, and potentially getting a ticket (or worse).
Motorcycle vs Helicopter (Score:3, Insightful)
While I believe this story about the motorcycle is true, you saw this on YouTube BECAUSE a helicopter was close by. There's plenty of guys who never make the news because they just gunned it and got away.
A lot of cops will openly acknowledge that if a sportbike blows past them, pursuit can be futile without air support. This jives with my experience because in my youth and stupidity, I blew past manned speed traps and most of the time, it seems the cops never bothered. The one time I did see lights and p
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Funny)
African or European?
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't buy a $2.1m car that can go 245MPH to actually go 245MPH. You buy it to brag that you can buy a $2.1m car that can go 245MPH.
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:4, Interesting)
Fuel and overall weight makes very little difference in the speed of an aircraft, just pretty much effects the burn rate of the fuel itself and extra load effects other performance factors such as speed during a high G manuver.
Helicopter speed is limited due to the problem of the speed of the leading edge of the rotor as it moves through the air. The tip travels far faster than the root of the blade. That in and of itself is no problem.
What is a problem however is that the tip is moving at say 400 mph or so, and the base is moving at next to nothing. Again, by itself this is fine.
When you add 150 to 200 mph of forward airspeed to it however, you have a tip speed in forward motion that is rapidly approaching the speed of sound. Now you have a problem. You have the problem of part of the rotor operating in supersonic conditions and part of the rotor operating in subsonic conditions. That in and of itself is extremely stressful, couple with it the fact that each rotor blade is transitioning into and out of supersonic mode every rotation and you rapidly run into the problem of having a airfoil that is extremely weak overall transitioning in and out of supersonic conditions hundreds or thousands of times a second. The end result is generally that the helicopter tears itself apart due to vibration and stress in an extremely short period of time.
We've just relatively recently come up with the technologies and materials to allow us to deal with the stresses of that sort of flight, but I'm pretty sure about the only people with that information are bound by DOD contracts, and as such you're not likely to find a non-military helo that would be able to withstand those speeds.
The extra weight and aerodynamic drag arent' a problem for helos and haven't been for a while, transitioning between subsonic and supersonic modes of flight a thousand times a second on the other hand, doesn't go over so well.
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Informative)
isle of man, for instance, has no national speed limit.
fyi, they're part of GB.
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Insightful)
The ones they've had on Top Gear were the hard-top - this is the new convertible, not that you'd know it from the summary. Despite the massive engineering difficulties of slicing the roof off and having it stay rigid and roll-safe, they've managed to keep it as quick as the hard-top. Seriously impressive engineering, even if as a car it's completely insane.
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Informative)
The Veyron does 0-100Km/h (approx. 0-61mph) in about 2.5 seconds. The McLaren F1 does the same in 3.2 seconds.
While the F1 is indeed an engineering marvel, and probably much more enjoyable to drive on a race track than the Veyron, it is clearly outclassed, though not surprisingly given the large age difference.
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Informative)
No... If acceleration is what you're after, at a fraction of the price, what you want is a Caterham 7 Superlight R500.
http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/showroom/superlightr500.html [caterham.co.uk]
0-60mph 2.88 seconds
Power-to-weight 520bhp-per-tonne
Top Speed 150mph.
Under GBP40k.
I built its little brother (7RS150), with 0-60mph of 5 seconds, in my garage a couple of years ago. It's a very very very fun toy...
Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (Score:5, Informative)
The McLaren F1 been discussed is not the race track version but rather the road legal super car built in the 90's in limited numbers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't seen their Africa challenge, have you?
I think it is by far one of the best things that were ever shown on TV, on this planet!
(The north pole and the USA challenge are also very impressive, but not quite as funny.)
Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, the sales tax alone on it is $155,500 at 5.5% which I'd pay if I bought this thing here in Wisconsin*, unless you're somehow going to smuggle it into the country to not pay sales tax, which would prevent you from properly registering it.. what good is a $2,100,000 car if you can't drive it anywhere?
* Hah -- like a Bugatti dealer would ever set up shop in Wisconsin. :)
I'm awfully tired of this jealous-of-people-with-money attitude. They probably earned it. More than likely they contribute vast sums to charitable causes so they don't have to pay taxes on those sums come death or tax day. If you want the cool stuff they get to have and experiences they get to have, earn it; don't get your jollies off telling THEM what to do with it.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Informative)
That is false. Actually, as a percentage of income, the middle class is the worst. The poor give away between 4 and 5%, the rich between 3 and 4%. The middle class gives much less than either. Unfortunately, all classes are starkly divided along the lines of givers and nongivers. While the average poor person is much more likely to be a nongiver, the averages are "fixed" by the one-in-four poor person who gives with extraordinary generosity.
This will be unpopular here, but the fact is that the group that gives the most is religious conservatives (disclaimer: I am religious but not conservative). And before anyone tries to negate the giving of the religious because a lot of that money is tithes, etc., understand that religious conservative people are actually more likely to give to secular charities than secular people, despite the fact that secular households earn about 16% more on average than religious households.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google is your friend [portfolio.com]. The figures quoted in that article don't completely bear out the original claim (the very rich give a higher percentage of their incomes than the averagely wealthy), but the poorest do indeed seem to give more than anyone else.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
They probably didn't. First, most people have at least one significant other who shares their riches. This fact alone means about 50% of the people with super spending power did not earn it. And that doesn't even include their heirs.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
And again, this is without considering heirs at all. The two richest women in America, for instance, are Wal Mart heirs [bloggingstocks.com] who had nothing to do with the business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because in this time and economy, I question the way he "earned" those 5 millions. Chances are that he didn't "earn" them at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent financial problems, caused mainly by people belonging to the group you just descibed, tell me that ... let's say it conservatively, not all really "earned" it.
'til recently, high wages were justified with the insane responsibility managers have. Now we know, they have less responsibility to bear than the average plumber.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many things wrong with spending 2 million dollars on a car, whether fairly earned or not (considering the target audience, the latter is far more likely, but - innocent until proven guilty).
However, the core tenet of our society is the protection of property. Your money, your call. I will call it stupid if it is (buying such a car definitely qualifies), but the freedom to spend/waste money you own is sacrosanct.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can say that to everyone who owns a car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I have a base level of altruism - like I don't think people should thirst or starve to death or die from easily curable illnesses and such. But past a certain point I don't have any altruism at all. If you make 100k$/year and I make 200k$/year (wish I did) I don't see any reason whatsoever why we should share it and get 150k$ each. I worked for it, I earned it, I enjoy the fruits of that labor. If you can't afford the same, well tough but you have really no reason to complain about your economy. I
broken window (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#Fallacy_of_the_argument [wikipedia.org]
They could be employed doing something worthwhile, instead. Such talented people would certainly have jobs anyway, and might be filling important engineering roles that benefit society directly, that are otherwise wanting right at this moment.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Informative)
You're full of shit. But hey, you sound like you know what you're talking about, so you must be right.
The Prius has about 90 pounds [cleangreencar.co.nz] of NiMH batteries in it. Those batteries are largely benign, so you could toss them into the trash if you wanted to with the rest of your refuse if they failed, but Toyota will pay you to recycle them.
Now, I think the "toxic manufacturing process" largely comes from the nickel that goes into the battery back. Now, I'm not sure how much of each cell is nickel, but I do know that your standard steel is about 10% nickel. Given that most of your standard vehicle is steel (and I'm sure the Bugatti is made of a ton of exotic materials like carbon fiber whose manufacture is more toxic than steel and can't be recycled like steel), and that the Veyron weighs about 1,000 pounds more than the Prius - even if the Prius battery was 100% nickel the nickel content of both cars would be similar.
Plus when you factor in that the lead-acid battery in the Prius is about half the size of your typical lead-acid battery, you cut the possible leakage of lead into the environment (which is much worse than nickel) in half.
I suspect that most of your assumptions about the toxicity of the Prius (and all other NiMH batteries) come from the widely debunked CNW "Dust to Dust" marketing study which claimed that the Prius alone was responsible for the widespread destruction of the area around a mine in Canada and that a Hummer (and thus a Veyron, apparently) is more environmentally friendly than a Prius.
I'll simply point you to this link: http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/is-the-prius-battery-toxic [terrapass.com] where in the comments the claims are quite easily refuted (see especially comment #8).
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Informative)
Um, no. The Prius -- especially the 2010 which I bought -- accelerates well: you'll be swerving around a minivan or a Hummer full of kids before you swerve around me. And I have absolutely no problems keeping up with traffic on US interstates.
You're either terribly opinionated or you're reflecting on how some Prius drivers DRIVE their vehicles (as opposed to what the car is capable of). In fact, it is my experience that the SLOWEST cars, the ones that leave 20-car gaps in front of them in heavy traffic and go 30 MPH on merging ramps, are non-hybrid cars being driven by people who evidently are trying to get hybrid mileage out of them. (Or who got a manual transmission and hate it.)
Yep, you can drive a Prius 70-80 and still be getting 40 MPG.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Insightful)
So is EVERY new car on the road. Lower (smog-forming) emissions are one of the great success stories of the ecological movement. And it would never have happened if California hadn't been pressured to impose tougher standards. You can thank the "whining hippies" for that.
All manufacturing produces waste, much of it toxic. Where do you think the rubber, plastics, and metal that your vehicle are made out of came from?
Unless you have specific claims about how the Prius produces additional waste compared to a similar new vehicle, I can't really refute them. Which is exactly what you want. By calling the Prius "toxic", you cast doubt without making any real assertions. That's exactly the kind of cheap tactics I'd expect from someone trashing "whining hippies".
We're not arrogant. We're angry. Angry that such engineering talent went into solving a problem that didn't need to be solved instead of the very real problems that do need to be solved. Show me a car that's lighter and stronger than today's cars yet still cheap to manufacture. That's the kind of "impossible" problem that needs to be solved. Not how to engineer a convertible supercar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how do you feel when you read about people who build browsers for the Commodore 64 [armory.com]? Or build a RAID'ed floppy setup [mac-guild.org]? Turn buildings into low res displays [blinkenlights.net]?
Each of those things are completely ridiculous, gain us nothing of value (outside of entertainment) and waste time and energy that could be drected at "the very real problems that do need to be solved".
Whatever happened to "because we can" as a mantra for why we
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Informative)
You and the grandparent are under a misapprehension. Generally the rich do not pay "duty" or "tax". Many of the people who buy this will be oil baron types from countries with no fuel tax. The type of people who "can afford it" are the type of people who pay almost nothing. Hell even Warren Buffet [google.com] (who pays 17% tax whilst his assistant pays 30%) and Bill Gates (Sr.) [pbs.org] have been campaigning against the unfairness of how little they pay.
Once again with feeling. Tax is for little people. Like you.
P.S. Actually an interesting thing about Warren Buffet's comments is that if you look through the Google search it seems this hasn't been reported much in mainstream media????
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Informative)
I dare you to suck on the tailpipe of any internal combustion vehicle. Please have paramedics on standby before you do.
While cars are very clean these days and can in fact emit exhaust that is cleaner in some aspects than normal air, any claims of exhaust coming out cleaner than "city air" has to be taken with a grain of salt.
BTW, the fact that it is able to shut off half the engine at low speeds only points out the fact that the engine is grossly over sized and powered for those speeds. It would be far more efficient if it simply had half the cylinders to start with (but then it wouldn't be able to push to speeds of 245mph).
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Interesting)
BTW, the fact that it is able to shut off half the engine at low speeds only points out the fact that the engine is grossly over sized and powered for those speeds.
You do understand that your average commute only uses 15-35hp, right? The reason hybrid and gas-electric vehicles are so much more efficient is because their generator only needs to be sized and optimized for average power consumption, rather than peak.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Informative)
This is why forklift trucks run on gas, and why cars which have been adapted to run on gas are so much cleaner. Since the optimum mixture is somewhat lean, there is always a certain amount of excess oxygen in the exhaust and no carbon monoxide. On gas, the emissions are predominantly carbon dioxide and water.
Because the optimum mixture for petrol is somewhat rich, you get quite a lot of carbon monoxide and a certain amount of soot.
Re:Guilty conscience? (Score:5, Informative)
Bogus, debunked here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/ [slate.com]
Guilty conscience? (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, but if I had one, my guilty conscience would have been left behind on the road, choking on the dust from my Veyron.
It's the ultimate halo car (Score:5, Informative)
The whole point of a halo car is to demonstrate engineering prowess and/or get PR for the company. It certainly worked; Bugatti went from being a maliase-y brand nobody had heard of, to a brand almost any 18 year old kid and any car enthusiast worth his salt knows about. It wouldn't surprise me if Bugatti make a big move into a (obviously lower) luxury market very soon, cashing in on the recognition they've earned.
Bugatti brand (Score:5, Interesting)
brand nobody had heard of
Are you kidding? Bugatti has been around forever.
Nowadays Bugatti is owned by Volkswagen and the Veyron is it's "gimmick" (for the car illiterate, this is an understatement) to show the world how bloody good they are. The "Volk" (people) part of VW is prohibitive in marketing luxury cars. The Phaeton for example just doesn't get the attention it deserves in the limousine segment.
IMHO the pedigree isn't there anymore. Bugatti was very successful in the old days but ever since Ettore Bugatti passed away in 1947 the company just didn't have a sense of direction. In 1987 the name Bugatti -and not the expertise and craftsmanship- was bought by an entrepreneur which produced the horrible Bugatti EB110. Now VW produces the Veyron and it's currently the technically most sophisticated car around but the blood line is definitively cut.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Bugatti EB110 is horrible"? To give you an idea of just how "horrible" it was, the greatest driver ever (statistically) - Michael Schumacher - bought one himself, and drove it often. Plus, it was the progenitor of the Veyron's quad-turbo meme. And you were doing quite well, up to there ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mention VW owns Lamboghini and Porsche. There's your "lower end" market covered there.
Porsche not (yet) and Lambo through Audi. Wouldn't we all want to humbly eat these scraps?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't surprise me if Bugatti make a big move into a (obviously lower) luxury market very soon, cashing in on the recognition they've earned.
The Bugatti brand has historically been known for exclusive and mostly very high performance automobiles in relatively the same market as other boutique Italian manufacturers such as Ferrari and Lamborghini or the British Aston Martin. The halo effect is well known in mass market brands, but Bugatti and other boutiques like it are NOT mass market brands and cannot be made into mass market brands without losing their boutique pedigree and exclusivity. I would be surprised if Volkswagen attempted to mass mark
It's a dinosaur. (Score:3, Funny)
At the beginning of 2008 Pininfarina and Bolloré set up a 50-50 joint venture with the goal of designing, developing, manufacturing and distributing an electric car with revolutionary technical features and formal qualities. The company considers the BLUECAR, to be not a mere concept car but a forerunner of the vehicle which will go into production in Italy at Pininfarina starting from 2010. Production on a commercial scale will take place between 2011 and 2017, with the forecasted output by 2015 being about 60,000 units.
Link to Story. [greencarmagazine.net]
RS
Bugatti Veyron = 27 MP3's (Score:5, Funny)
Kinda puts it in perspective..............
Finance a car loan (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, in this economy, $2.1 million is probably enough to make you a one-man special-interest group with some serious Washington clout."
It's a car well suited to bankers who profited from the financial scandals and government bailouts.
My question (Score:5, Funny)
What advantages does this motor car have over, say, a train -- which I could also afford?
In real units... (Score:5, Informative)
1000 horsepower is a lot of power.
Re:In real units... (Score:4, Interesting)
A single wind turbine, the really big kind they use in wind farms, generates about 1500 kilowatts.
Uhm, no. In wind energy, that's close to ancient history. Let's say 5000 kilowatts: http://www.repower.de/index.php?id=237&L=1 [repower.de]
And that's a model that can be bought now, there are >8MW models in development.
750kW in a car is still a lot though.
Article Quality and Wired (Score:5, Insightful)
The days are certainly gone when Wired used to have people like Neal Stephenson write for them.
Wired used to be cool and had decent writers. Wired used to be something to /read/.
Now? We have this. A fluff advertisement column, but not only that, nothing about the tech end at all. Nothing about the engineering or anything really interesting except that it's a fast car and costs a lot of money. It's also written in the style of a high-school newspaper or Slashdot summary. Wired has become Maxim, but without the girls.
--
BMO
Play on player (Score:5, Insightful)
As a younger man I used to get very upset about the gap between rich and poor, pointing to this type of excess as an example. But having accepted it as an adult, the world is not fair, I actually enjoy seeing this kind of insanity. If the rich want to blow their money on what amounts to "fluff" then so be it. We should be encouraging them every chance we can. It's when they horde it away that truly screws the poor. There's a sucker born every minute, at least with the Bugatti you get a truly well crafted machine that will be rare for the rest of your life and on and on. This machine will also appreciate in value, because like I said, there's one born every minute. If you want to piss your hard earned (or not) money, then who am I to stop you. Play on player. But bear in mind, it's still just a car. One awesome fucking car.
The fastest production car... (Score:3, Informative)
The fastest production car is not the Bugatti, but the SSC Ultimate Aero TT. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_car
Missing the Pont (Score:4, Insightful)
They are also all sold at a considerable loss - they cost much more to build than they sell for. It's a final swansong excercise in ultimate car technology. Sure, they'll be cool and funky stuff along later but for this sort of vehicle, it's the top dog. As such, I admire it as an excercise is engineering and beauty.
However, it is also (to my mind) an obscene way to spend your money.
Re:If I ever see.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you parked it on the street without an armed guard, you'd deserve it.
Friend of mine has a Ferrari.. it goes from the garage to the track and back again, and that's it. (Oh ok, sometimes it goes down the highway and gets him speeding tickets.)
Re:If I ever see.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently the thing to do is wake up at 4 AM, cross the causeway into Malaysia and point the car at Kuala Lumpur. Two hours later you are having breakfast in KL. The drive back would be after the traffic cops have woken up for the day so you take a bit longer for that leg, and carry some cash
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking from a "flaunt your wealth in the face the starving and you'll get a dagger" class warfare perspective of course.
Re:If I ever see.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? The Veyron is an incredible piece of engineering. Bugatti sell them at a LOSS if I recall. The workmanship is astounding.
I ever caught you keying ANY car, I'd break your fucking legs. People who key cars are UNIVERSALLY assholes.
But then you're too big of a pussy to post with your real account, so clearly you ARE an asshole.
Think of the Virgens! (Score:3, Funny)
Why? The Veyron is an incredible piece of engineering. Bugatti sell them at a LOSS if I recall. The workmanship is astounding.
Not only that, but according to the Wired article,
they had to sacrifice 100 virgins and have the production facility in Molsheim, France, blessed by druids.
I completely disagree with sacrificing virgins, so anybody who buys this car is implicitly supporting the destruction of virgins.
Re:Think of the Virgens! (Score:5, Funny)
I completely disagree with sacrificing virgins, so anybody who buys this car is implicitly supporting the destruction of virgins.
Male virgins, yes. Now give me my car!
That is why he is against the destruction of virgins... self preservation
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a lopsided equation where the design cost is very high and the production number is very low. If you take them exactly at their word then yes they will never, ever make money on it. I highly doubt that the statement of "every Veyron is sold at a loss" comes with zero marketing spin. My point being that most of the built in cost of the car is the R&D. If you plan to sell 50 of them (@ $2 mil each) and it cost 200 million to design then yes it's being sold at a loss. You don't even make back what you
Re:If I ever see.. (Score:5, Informative)
There are two sets of costs: non-recurring and recurring. The non-recurring costs include all of the engineering effort, R&D, putting together the production facility, etc. The recurring costs are those that you incur for each unit produced.
I find it highly unlikely that the recurring costs are more than $2.1M for the car, unless it was made of solid iridium or something. (Annual production of iridium is something like 3 tons.) I wouldn't find it surprising at all, though, if Bugatti had sunk quite a bit of R&D money into developing the tech in the Veyron, and perhaps a bit of dough on the production facility.
Wikicars [wikicars.org] says this:
So far, the oldest article I've seen claiming these numbers is this one from early 2007 [blogspot.com]. By the end of 2006, fewer than 50 had been produced. If we assume this number applies to the first 50, then that means the total cost to that point was a cool £250million. Yow!
Since then, though, another 150 have been produced. I highly doubt that it cost another £750million. In fact, this article [autotrader.co.uk] points to most of the costs having been R&D costs with this quote:
That's 250 man-years. If you assume each engineer costs $250K/year for labor, benefits and overhead, that's $62.5M in labor costs developing the transmission alone. Throw in all the machine work and parts and everything else, and I'm sure you easily get up to $100M development costs on the transmission alone.
People keep throwing that £5 million per car number out there, but I seriously believe it's way out of date.
Re:If I ever see.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You deserve it at the very least.
Why is it that people with the wherewithal who simply live their lives are branded as cunts who deserve to be robbed, killed, sneered at and have there decent piece of engineering keyed by pimply-faced have-nots?
I suggest to you, Anonymous Coward, that you are indeed an anonymous coward ashamed of your own simmering mediocrity. You are, furthermore, a fucking communist who bites the very hand that feeds it. Go join Osama bin fucking Laden and his bearded closet gays who enjoy destroying instead of building. You don't deserve to be part of a civilised society which aspires to build, improve, learn, live a productive and long life raising beautiful children and leave a legacy.
I'd like to thank you for reminding me that the world is full of little shits like you who do not deserve to be gainfully employed (I filter out your kind all the time when employing - your thin veneer of civility does not hide the pus in your soul). I enjoy superior engineering, the same way you enjoy your decently engineered notebook. Linus drives an old German merc (remember, these things are all relative) who, by your reasoning, has the money for it, and therefore deserves to have his beautiful piece of human engineering keyed, because hey, you can't afford one.
And please, don't blather about how you cannot compare an old merc to a Bugatti. If you do, then I'm sure you won't even hear the whoosh.
Re:interesting fact (Score:4, Funny)
GM owns Volkswagen [wikipedia.org]? That is news to me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bugatti Automobiles SAS is a subsidiary of Volkswagen, and is actually a new company founded in 2000. As far as I'm aware, none of the former Bugatti companies were ever associated with GM; even if they were, a subsidiary can certainly make cars distinct from its parent company if the corporate structure permits.
Re:Yeah but.... (Score:5, Funny)
More importantly, at 2.1 million dollars, will it blend?
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:3, Informative)
$550,000, same 0-60 acceleration, MUCH higher top speed (420 mph/ 676 km/h) [softpedia.com]. So what if it isn't completely street-legal ... even if the cops bought a Veyron, they'd be eating your dust ...
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again they have different target markets. The guy on the bike got to demonstrate his incredible ballsiness, whereas the guy in the Porsche put some tunes on the stereo, flipped on the aircon and went to pick up his girlfriend.
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:4, Funny)
But they are quite good at coming up with ridiculous car analogies. Also I might as well mention that I would be willing to cut off a testicle in exchange for a Veyron.
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
As a wise police officer once told me: "You can't outrun radio waves, son"
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not allowed to jam them, but you're under no obligation to return them.
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:5, Interesting)
At that speed, you don't have to ... if they can't read the license plate, or even see if there IS a license plate, they can't do a whole heck of a lot. 300 to 400 mph is FAST. A friend of mine actually managed to make a stock car street legal, and he told me that, at the speeds he would do once a year (he only did about 1,500 miles per year with it, since it needed a complete engine rebuild after a few "runs"), "you know the striped lane dividers - at that speed, it's a solid white line." He blew by a radar trap, drove for a few more minutes, and parked in a restaurant. 10 minutes later, the cops came in, arguing as to whether the car in the parking lot was his. After they told him that they couldn't make a positive identification, they asked him to open the hood, just so they could take a look-see. They were impressed.
Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative (Score:4, Informative)
You may not be able to outrun radio waves, but you can outrun the response to radio waves.
I was pulled over racing against an imported http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_911_GT3 [wikipedia.org] that the driver claimed he had personally done 190 MPH in. This was on I-75 near Tampa. Police Interceptors only go 140 MPH. Not only that they would have to accelerate up to speed to catch you. At 190 MPH you are going faster than 3 miles a min which also means you're going faster than 1 mile every 20 seconds. Exits on I-75 are about every 3 miles. So the officer would have to radio a head, then the responding officer would have to get in position. Also the officers aren't going to pit you at that speed nor try anything else to stop you since it would be to dangerous. At that speed they'll pretty much leave you alone, they may try and get your plates but other than that there isn't much they can do.
In Atlanta they operate Bell 206B Jet Ranger's for their helicopters, they only have a Top Speed of 220 MPH so the Bugatti would even be able to outrun the aerial pursuit.
1000+HP for how long? A few seconds? (Score:4, Informative)
I wouldn't want to ride in a Buick Grand National doing over 200MPH. Seriously, that car is based on the Buick Regal, a car designed for the regular driving public to drive around town at "normal" speeds. It'd probably be quite dangerous at anything north of 140. The factory did no optimization of the aerodynamics or the suspension for those kinds of speeds.
Furthermore, the car in the video is modified within an inch of its life. You'll notice that there aren't even any air filters on the turbo intakes, and it sounds like there isn't much of an exhaust system. Also, chances are good that the drivetrain would self destruct pretty rapidly if the maximum power output was achieved for more than a few seconds.
The Veyron, on the other hand, can hold its maximum speed until the tires self destruct (about 14 minutes, I think), and it can be driven in traffic without worrying about dirt damaging the engine, or having to yell over the sound of the engine. If someone made tires that would survive longer at those speeds you'd only be limited by the length of the road and the fuel tank capacity. Still, wouldn't it be cheaper to buy into something like Netjets if you need to get somewhere that fast?
The Buick Grand National was a neat car for its time (with a whopping, what 245HP stock?), and people have gotten impressive power and fuel economy out of them, but it's not really comparable to the Veyron.
Re:Yeah but.... (Score:5, Funny)
It comes with Windows Mobile on the navigation system.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Boy would you be pissed seeing a blue screen after you signed over 2.1 big bobs
Re:Yeah but.... (Score:5, Interesting)
does it run linux?
I don't know about the Veyron, but the Tesla Roadster does. I have one of the logs right here. 2.6.11.8-1.3.0, BusyBox 1.00, 32 megs ram, Philips-LPC2294 CPU, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They are rarely jealous of someone who has less.
My guess is that ScuttleMonkey belongs to the former, and his rant is nothing more than sour grapes. I'll just admit that I could never afford to even own one, let alone buy one and move on.
But I sure would love to take a look at one....or a ride.
Re:"Guilty conscience" (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, like they gonna sell millions of these. Keep your commie green cool aid to yourself, eh, monkey boy?!
"Commie" is a bit inappropriate, considering the immense environmental damage caused by communist regimes. It kinda figures, considering that they were all about "progress", technology and industrial "victory". The Nazis, OTOH, were relatively "green", at least in theory. Hitler was even a vegetarian (sort of). Cue Godwin!
Re:A bit overblown (Score:5, Funny)
"TFA waffles on about how Bugatti had to work on the structure to make it survive at 250 miles per hour, but honestly, speeds like that are just routine for twin engined aeroplanes."
Not on tarmac they aren't. You're neglecting the fact that the only thing keeping the Veyron on the road are four bits of rubber. Let's see the plane this is supposedly routine for do 250mph along the ground for any length of time. What an utterly ridiculous statement. You may as well say "The Space Shuttle does more than that easily!" It'd be as equally stupid and irrelevant.
Do 500mph in a plane, then do 100mph in a car. Which was the rougher ride? Stressed "a bit more"? Are you insane?
As a racer I'm just honestly astounded you'd make such a wrong headed comparison. I am just overwhelmed here with all the reasons you are so incredibly misguided.
As for your second equally demented paragraph, the Veyron is ROAD LEGAL! None of the cars you're talking about are.
Good god it's amazing you can dress yourself. Do you accidentally find yourself trying to wear bananas on your feet? Or perhaps a melon instead of a tie? Because honestly, your comparisons make me wonder what else you get so easily confused by. If you think the Veyron is comparable to a plane then...
I'm sorry, I'm just utterly baffled by you. But then if you read this you're probably going to try and type your reply on a bowl of soup. After all it's similar to a keyboard.
Re:A bit overblown (Score:5, Informative)
Airplanes go pretty fast on asphalt actually. A typical commerical airliner takes off at about 200 mph and lands at 150-175. The Concorde took off at 250 mph. The shuttle is well over 200 at touchdown.
Amateurs (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, sure, it's very easy for amateurs to make cars go 400mph. I see it all the time with funny cars/etc.
Of course, they only go that fast for a couple brief seconds. Then, after about 2 runs down the track, they have to completely rebuild the engines. And the tires have to be replaced after each race. And the engines can't pass smog tests. And the cars aren't street legal.
Everyone knows lots of things that go this fast. What makes this car amazing is that it goes this fast and it's a god damn dai
Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It is not about the top speed... (Score:5, Informative)
Hate to tell ya, but you've got a flat 6 [wikipedia.org], not a V6, sitting behind you...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually he's pretty indicative of the average Porsche driver.
I did the top speed in an S4.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an unrestricted S4, and removing the limiter is the only mod it has ever had.
Now it is 4 years old, I finally had the time and safe place to test the top speed (well, "top" as in "got clamped by the rev limited instead"), and I got to a GPS measured 268 km/h before the rev limiter kicked in. It was somewhere in Germany, I happened upon this 5km stretch of perfect viewable road by chance (and had to drive another 5km before I found a chance to return and USE it :-).
Overtaking a row of 8 (I think) police vans at 220 km/h on cruise control during the run up was just a bonus (you know you're legal but still the nervousness remains).
There is, however, a good argument why you won't do this for long even if it's entirely legal and you find a safe bit of road to test. With a fuel consumption of just under 60 (yes, SIXTY) liters per 100km you will need a MUCH bigger tank to get from A to B. It's ridiculously uneconomical to push such a large amount of steel over 4 wheels against the wind.
Having said that, it's also good fun annoying BMW drivers who don't seem to know that "S4" means "brutally large factory sports tuned V8 in front, gripping on 4 wheels on sport suspension". Fnarr fnarr..
Conversions (all approx):
268 km/h = 166.5 mph
60l/100km = 1.67km/l, 4.7 MPG(UK) or 3.9 MPG(US)
Final notes for wannabees: I have had extensive high speed training. Don't try this stuff unless you're (a) stone sober and in top physical condition, (b) are 100% sure of the condition and capabilities of your car (and even then), (c) on location where such speeds are legal and (d) can do so without causing any risk to other road users (on circuit is even better) - and that's after doing some test runs.
Re:Veyron? Meh. (Score:4, Interesting)
In a straight line yes, but with any kind of turns on the road the bike gets owned.
I mean, I have a Mazda MX-5, pretty much the cheapest roadster you can get. It has 160 hp on 950 kg, and I've left a bike with 120 hp on 200 kg behind on a very squiggly road. Bikes don't handle. And with a car, if you lose grip you have the possibility of getting back control. Lose control with a bike, and you are an organ donor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No cup holder? I'll pass.
They likely looked at the kind of engineering problems a cup holder would present and decided it was too hard.
Think about it: 0-60 in 2.5 seconds == 10.72m/s^2. This car accelerates at _over 1G_. The cup holder would have to automatically swivel through 45 degrees to prevent it spilling your drink when you put your foot to the floor.