The Bugatti Veyron

250MPH? by Flumph · 2004-04-27 10:16 · Score: 0, Offtopic

At those speeds, shouldn't it have wings rather than wheels?

BTW, FP.

Flumph

Re:250MPH? by ron_ivi · 2004-04-27 10:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Parent asked: ", shouldn't it have wings"
It has wings - just upside down - for the downforce needed to make it stable. From TFA:
aerodynamics was the biggest challenge. That the car doesn't fly. We needed a lot, a lot, of wind-tunnel testing. With the moving tail spoiler we've got enough downforce now, about 100 kg (221 pounds) at the rear and 80 kg (177 pounds) at the front at top speed."

But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 lbs. of extra metal? Serious question. Is downforce from the spoiler(wing) that much better than extra metal?
Re:250MPH? by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 10:37 · Score: 5, Informative

Tire grip increases with weight, but it is a log curve- the more you increase weight, the smaller the increases in traction are. Since each increase in weight also increases the mass, the tires have to do more work to change the direction of the car. Thus, heavy cars tend to develop less and less traction than lighter cars.

Adding downforce increases the car's "weight" for purposes of calculating the grip of the tires on the road, but doesnt increase the mass of the car that they have to change the direction of.

This is why the "ideal" race car is a stick figure formula 1 type car with a giant engine and huge wings. The downforce keeps the car stuck on the road with the force of many times its weight, but since the car is so light it can change direction with mind boggling speed. This is why formula one cars can develop over 5gs of sideways acceleration. The powerful engine helps to generate speed which in turn increases downforce. The cars actually grip more the faster they go.
Re:250MPH? by maevius · 2004-04-27 10:42 · Score: 1

downforce is controlled much easier. It does not have mass so it is easier to accelerate, break and most important, turning the car...also, you can control the amount of downforce so you can achieve top speed easier (I'm not sure about veyron but enzo ferarri decreases the downforce after a certain speed so it can accelerate more)
Re:250MPH? by adamgeek · 2004-04-27 10:45 · Score: 1

certainly not. 400lbs is a ton of weight, even in the sport-luxury end of the scale. that would dratsically mess up handling, braking, and accelleration.
Re:250MPH? by black+mariah · 2004-04-27 11:19 · Score: 1

Yes, it's that much better. Consider that there is so much downforce on a Formula 1 car that if you flipped it upside down, it could drive on the ceiling of a tunnel. Adding extra weight would just negatively effect handling in the turns. This is why racecars are so lightweight. Less weight, less lateral force on the car around turns.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:250MPH? by Brian_Warner · 2004-04-27 12:12 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but 5g's? do the math! a lotus exige (converted elise racing model) has phenomenally high lateral grip, and its best effort is 0.98g. F1 cars don't even get close to that figure under breaking, which is always your highest acceleration figure, i believe that under breaks, they can do about 3. Sure they can do 5g's around a corner, but they'll be spinning towards the runoff area at the time...
Re:250MPH? by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-27 12:28 · Score: 1

Adding downforce increases the car's "weight" for purposes of calculating the grip of the tires on the road, but doesnt increase the mass of the car that they have to change the direction of.

This is why the "ideal" race car is a stick figure formula 1 type car with a giant engine and huge wings.

What you didn't mention is that all that extra horsepower and downforce is useless at low speeds. (I believe downforce is proportional velocity cubed, so it falls off rather quickly.)

A Formula 1 race car is an idea car for a Formula One race, but I wouldn't be suprised to see one get its ass kicked by a race-prepped Miata at an autocross event with a bunch of hairpin turns.

In the end, the "perfect car" depends on where you're going to be driving it.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:250MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 13:13 · Score: 0

The 5g's is total forces while cornering at high speed. This is possible because of the extreme traction caused by the extreme downforce. On a static skidpad type test which you are refering to in the lotus example, I'm sure it would score about the same, maybe a litte better. F1 and champ cars have very soft tires, and very large contact patches, both of which help static traction quite a bit.

And to the other poster, I'm pretty sure an F1 car would beat the pants off any car in an autoX type event. There is just no replacement for lateral grip, and crazy accelleration (0-100 in 5 secs), and braking (55 feet 100-0).
Re:250MPH? by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 13:16 · Score: 1

Have you ever seen the cars that people bring to compete in A MOD? A formula one car would demolish the entire field at most autocrosses. 1000 lbs, 900 hp and slicks go a long way towards victory. Even the most stripped miata is still going to be about 1800 lbs with driver. And that assumes no rollcage for autox use only.

And yes, obviously a formula one car will not generate 5g of skidpad at 30 mph, but you shouldnt write off a car just because it generates only 1.5 or 2 g of skidpad at low speeds. Still worlds faster than any car I have seen at an autocross.
Re:250MPH? by Zugok · 2004-04-27 13:22 · Score: 1

Consider that there is so much downforce on a Formula 1 car that if you flipped it upside down, it could drive on the ceiling of a tunnel
that may have been true in the past but not with the current formula of formula 1 cars, since ground effects (which suck the car down - as opposed to aerodynamic downforce which "pushes" the car down) are prohibited. A better example would have been the Champcars, I recall they still use ground effects.
With ground effects the effective downforce is proportional to something like velocity squared. I can't remember, but yes the point is, it is possible to drive a car upsidedown in a tunnel, given you are going at a very high velocity.

--
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
Re:250MPH? by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 13:28 · Score: 1

Do the math yourself. A lotus street car made from steel is VERY VERY different from an open wheeled race car made from composites. An fully fueled exige weighs about 1700 lbs [b]without[/b] driver. We will assume a small driver of 150 lbs, for a grand total of 1850 race weight.

A formula one car is regulated to a minimum of 1287 lbs race weight (including driver and fuel) and can generate 1287 lbs of downforce at 100mph. This is far less than the cars are capable of- the rules limit them to this by forbidding certain underbody designs. At 200 mph the car will generate over 5000 lbs of aerodynamic downforce. Speed doubles, downforce quadruples.

Lets see, that will give the car over 6000 lbs of weigh pushing down on the tires, which are extremely sticky dry weather tires. Such tires on lesser cars could easily generate 2g of skidpad. Furthermore, the vehicle itself only weighs the aforementioned 1287 lbs, so you can imagine how easily the car could generate 5gs of lateral force under the right circumstances.

Wait, I just did the math. Would you like a cold glass of shut the fuck up?
Re:250MPH? by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-27 13:33 · Score: 1

Have you ever seen the cars that people bring to compete in A MOD? A formula one car would demolish the entire field at most autocrosses. 1000 lbs, 900 hp and slicks go a long way towards victory. Even the most stripped miata is still going to be about 1800 lbs with driver. And that assumes no rollcage for autox use only. And yes, obviously a formula one car will not generate 5g of skidpad at 30 mph, but you shouldnt write off a car just because it generates only 1.5 or 2 g of skidpad at low speeds. Still worlds faster than any car I have seen at an autocross.

Perhaps, but you understand my point. In an autocross, you're be better off without the big wings and insane horsepower in favor of a lighter car. There's not really a "perfect car" out there.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:250MPH? by fenix+down · 2004-04-27 13:48 · Score: 2, Funny

400lbs is a ton

Damn you metric sytem!
Re:250MPH? by AK+Marc · 2004-04-27 13:48 · Score: 1

In an autocross, you're be better off without the big wings and insane horsepower in favor of a lighter car.

In an autocross you will be better off with bigger wings than not. Go look at the wings in the prepared class. The most competitive cars are all at the max allowed. Pull the wing and run them. You will go slower.

Take a car. Remove power. You will go slower.

More hp and bigger wings will help, even in an autocross.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:250MPH? by AK+Marc · 2004-04-27 13:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

And to the other poster, I'm pretty sure an F1 car would beat the pants off any car in an autoX type event. There is just no replacement for lateral grip, and crazy accelleration (0-100 in 5 secs), and braking (55 feet 100-0).

I think that an F1 car would get it's ass kicked if it was prepped for an F1 race and dropped on to an autocross course. I think that it would do quite well if it was prepped correctly for an autocross.

F1 tires would not heat up by the end of an autocross run, giving little benefit. They would need to be swapped out from tires meant to last for 100+ miles of racing with ones designed to last 10 miles of racing (softer compound autocross tires). I've never driven an F1 car, but my guess is that the steering would suck for an autocross. I suspect it would be easy to mess with the ratio to make it more usable, but the lock-to-lock at relatively low speeds would probably be close to impossible without mods. Also, there is no point in 6 or more gears when you wouldn't even get out of first gear (and even then, you'd not get to the power peak in first gear on an autocross course). Again, I've not driven an F1 car, but I would expect that they would not generate significant power at low speeds, as that is not what they were designed to do.

If you took any 1000 lb car with 1000 hp and set it up well, it would be great for autocrossing. However, the F1 circuit does not leave the cars set up well for short, low-speed handling contests.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:250MPH? by Brian_Warner · 2004-04-27 14:00 · Score: 1

firstly, the lotus exige is 550kg unfuelled, so about 50-100kg heavier than an F1 car. i have no doubt that an F1 car could do 2g lateral on a skidpad, but not 5. hell, under the right circumstances, i can pull 5g in a honda civic, i just crank the wheel, pull the handbrake... i'm saying that a controlled 5gs is not possible.
Re:250MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:01 · Score: 0

What the fuck crack are you smoking? I'd really like some..

THE LARGEST skidpad acceleration found on a consumer car is the Porsche 911 GT3. It's JUST OVER 1.0G, which is interesting, because there are cars out there that will do 0-60 a bit faster than it, so it must have pretty good peak acceleration.

Even with a set of really sticky slicks there isn't a consumer car that's going to do 2Gs. Most top fuel cars top out at 3.44G, and produce somewhere about 6000HP. Logarithmic, right? Do the math.
Re:250MPH? by buck_wild · 2004-04-27 14:26 · Score: 1

"Even with a set of really sticky slicks there isn't a consumer car that's going to do 2Gs."

So you think that an F1 is a consumer car?

--
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Re:250MPH? by black+mariah · 2004-04-27 15:02 · Score: 1

Ummm.... the ground effects are irrelevant to this example. The front and rear spoilers provide more than enough downforce to keep the car on the ceiling. Flip them upside down and shove a jet engine on the car and you have a nice straight-line aeroplane.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:250MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:21 · Score: 0

Consumer, meaning that you can actually buy it, then yes; the Porsche 911 GT3 counts (though it's still more road car than thier F1 car is). You can score one for a cool hundred grand--not unobtainable.

Consumer meaning that mom can put all 9 of your kids in and take a leisurely drive through the boulevard and drop your kids off as soccer practice?

No.
Re:250MPH? by Zugok · 2004-04-27 15:26 · Score: 1

well the thing is, I have only heard of this "driving on the ceiling" example applied to ground effects, not to aerodynamics. I'll have to check it out.

--
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
Re:250MPH? by black+mariah · 2004-04-27 16:33 · Score: 1

Ground effects ARE aerodynamics. All ground effects are is shaping the underside of a car so that air under the car is minimized and the air that gets under the car can escape more efficiently. Ground effects aren't mechanical (well, SOME have been. See the 'Sucker Car'. Two large fans were attached to some ducting that lead under the car, under braking the fans came on and sucked air out from under the car. Unfortunately, it also tended to suck up loose bits of pavement and rocks and spit them at the car behind), they're just further aerodynamic modifications. A spoiler is an upside down wing, nothing more. Turn it over and downforce magically becomes lift. That's why the car could stick to the ceiling.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:250MPH? by RallyNick · 2004-04-27 16:34 · Score: 1

I think the lateral 5gs are only obtained when the track is banked. On a flat road they'll probably get 2-3gs lateral, and that only in certain very high speed turns. In medium-tight turns or on a circular skidpad where they use slow speeds (by F1 standards) the downforces are small and they won't get much more than 1g lateral.
Re:250MPH? by bryan_chow · 2004-04-27 18:59 · Score: 1

Sorry, you are very confused. The skidpad ratings you are quoting are done ON A SKIDPAD with a small radius (most magazines use 300ft), at not-very-high speeds. F1 and Indy cars routinely do > 2Gs in highspeed turns, and up to 5Gs when braking.
Re:250MPH? by BlameFate · 2004-04-27 22:28 · Score: 2, Informative

A modern F1 car has to weigh 600kg minimum , them's the rules set out by the FIA, of course, the top teams produce a much lighter car, some even in the 450kg range, then they make the rest up with ballast which they can distribute about the car however they want to get the best weight distribution. This changes from track to track.
At speeds approaching 200mph, a modern F1 car generates 2100kg of downforce. enough to stick it to the ceiling 3 times over.
It's a common misconception that the ground effect era of the 70's was the pinnacle of racing car downforce. The aero enginnering on an F1 car today is so advanced that the downforce they generate is way ahead of where they were in the 70's.
What *is* true is that ground effect gives more *mid corner* downforce when the car is going slow, so it pushes cornering speeds up. And if you lose the ground effect mid corner from hitting a kerb or something, you can get lift or at the very least lose all that lovely adhesive low speed downforce. This directly lead to the deaths of a couple of F1 drivers, hence ground effect aero was banned.

--
--is not to be confused with user #672982 - Bame Flait
Re:250MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:31 · Score: 0

how is asking a dumb question insightful? anyone who knows basic physics knows the difference between mass and weight.
Re:250MPH? by TheCrazyFinn · 2004-04-28 02:03 · Score: 1

Well, a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo VIII RS will pull .95g stock and with carefully chosen upgrades will pull over 1G.

And that's with 4 adults and a baby seat in a compact sedan (Albeit a 271HP Turbocharged AWD Compact sedan)

Of course, with carefully chosen upgrades it will do 0-60 in under 4 seconds and run a 12 second quarter mile.

All this in a $30,000 car.

2+G's out of an F1 car is believable. Adding actual airfoils and massive rubber give the F1 it's stupidly good cornering.

--
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Re:250MPH? by TheCrazyFinn · 2004-04-28 02:11 · Score: 1

There's a difference between big wings and HP and a F1 car.

First off, F1 engines are like honda engines. Lacking in torque, althouh the F1 engines are much less torqy than any B16. This means that their low-speed accelleration is poor. Also they won't oversteer at low speeds due to the amount of grip, so you can't use that to aid your way through a turn.

They'd rip at a track meet, but not in the tight stuff at a parking lot meet, where something along the lines of an Elise 190 is ideal (light, well balanced, easy to do a controlled oversteer). You don't see a lot of 500+HP Autocross rides because at those outputs the power tends to overpower the cars ahandling (unless you're driving a beast like a Supra or a Skyline, which needs te power due to excessive weight)

--
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Re:250MPH? by stanmann · 2004-04-28 02:54 · Score: 1

You have to excuse the canadians, everything is smaller, the dollar, the ton, etc

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:250MPH? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 06:27 · Score: 0

"The ultra-high-speed 130R turn at Suzuka with its lateral load of 4g poses the greatest challenge to the oil system."

-Mario Theissen (BMW Motorsport Director)

just go google for "suzuka 130R" if you're in doubt...

On the road? by snake_dad · 2004-04-27 10:17 · Score: 5, Funny

How do you keep a passenger car on the road

Who cares? I want my flying car!

--
karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.

Re:On the road? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:18 · Score: 0

Who cares? I want my flying car!

Flying car, shmying car. I WANT MY MONKEY MAN!
Re:On the road? by FrYGuY101 · 2004-04-27 10:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Then buy one!

--
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

- Seneca
Re:On the road? by drp · 2004-04-27 10:28 · Score: 1

The IRL already has you beat on the whole flying car thing. Give them a ring, I'm sure they'd love a driver.
Re:On the road? by Ifni · 2004-04-27 10:32 · Score: 1

It's Dante's fault. He should have taken that German scientist up on his offer...

--
Oh, was that my outside voice?
Re:On the road? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:32 · Score: 0

I saw the Veyron FLY OFF THE ROAD at it's public unveiling last year at the Monterey Historic Races in Monterey CA. It spun on the front straight near corner one at something approaching 200 Mph, probably when the rear end lost traction over the slight crest. The back end was less than 3 feet from the inside wall when it came to rest. I can't imagine how bad it would have been if it had been going faster! This was no small-time event, Bugatti ferried in interested parties from all over the world to spend time in the air-conditioned VIP tent. After the nearly deadly spin, the driver continued around for another lap or two and parked it for the rest of the weekend.
Re:On the road? by demachina · 2004-04-27 13:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

"How do you keep a passenger car on the road "

More importantly exactly what is the point of having a passenger car that can go 250 MPH. If you live in the U.S. and you routinely drive half that speed your driver's license is going be gone in a month.

OK, maybe you live in Germany and you drive on Autobahn's with no speed limit. Then you could maybe crank it up to 200 MPH. At that point you would be on the verge of killing yourself thanks to the huge differential with the rest of the traffic on the highway. If you killed yourself that would be OK but you would probably take one or more people with you and that is not OK.

There is simply no reason to even allow a car with this much power to be licensed for highway driving. If you want the styling great build a car with the same styling and an engine appropriate for highway driving. If you really want to drive this fast, buy a race car and get on a racing circuit. That way when you set out on your path to self destruction you will be on a track full of people with the same death wish and you can kill each other with killing innocent bystanders.

If you buy a car with this much power, and then drive anywhere close to the speed limit you are just a retard compensating for your absence of a penis and or brains.

--
@de_machina
Re:On the road? by netsharc · 2004-04-27 13:20 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually a lot of supercars get bought by super-rich oil sheiks of the Middle East, who are probably part of the Ruling King's family that they can get away with driving as crazy as they want. Then again, they take the cars out to the desert roads where there are no pedestrians to hit.

I think it must be fun, wouldn't mind having a go if I had the chance.

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Re:On the road? by operagost · 2004-04-27 13:29 · Score: 1

You're a real party pooper, you know that?

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:On the road? by HyperCash · 2004-04-27 14:03 · Score: 2, Informative

Having a more powerfull engine can be useful for accelerating faster even if you don't get it all the way up to its maximum speed.

--
So I'm jump'n up and down screaming show me the money.
Re:On the road? by DZign · 2004-04-27 18:45 · Score: 1

Indeed, reminds me of an episode of BBC's Top Gear of a few years ago when they visited one of the arab countries..
In the weekend people just take their jeeps and go in the deserts to race and have a picknick.
It was a crazy sight..

--
Learn about pinball machines on www.flippers.be
Re:On the road? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 22:32 · Score: 0

Been there, done that!!!

http://www.moller.com/sales

I went to the Moller site in order to buy one, unfortunately it's not available at the moment. There is a "sales" page on the site thou. Since I don't need no stinking model, tech paper or VHS video (haven't got NTSC, and I want the car, damn it), nor do I need a t-shirt, the nearest thing I've found to a real car is this one:

License Plate Cover $20.00
This license plate cover features the proclamation that "My next car will be a Skycar" along the bottom. Made of a durable plastic in black with gold type. (Different than photo)

I'm just a bit worried for the "different than photo". let's hope.
Re:On the road? by zero_offset · 2004-04-27 23:16 · Score: 2, Informative

If you live in the U.S. and you routinely drive half that speed your driver's license is going be gone in a month.

I am living proof this is not true. You just have to be careful, and spend a lot of your time driving around at 4AM on empty highways. I very frequently drive most of the way to work at around 140 MPH. Where I live, we have LONG stretches of highway with no on-ramps, and walls/barricades on both sides, and long flat sections where you can literally see for miles and miles. And my car is usually race-prepped. I can do a 140-to-zero stop faster than most cars can stop from 70.

However, I do not drive at high speed in or near traffic, and I don't street race.

There is simply no reason to even allow a car with this much power to be licensed for highway driving.

Who died and made you queen?

If you buy a car with this much power, and then drive anywhere close to the speed limit you are just a retard compensating for your absence of a penis and or brains.

*Yawn.*

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:On the road? by 74nova · 2004-04-28 01:35 · Score: 1

How do you keep a passenger car on the road
it was my understanding that they havent been able to with the bugatti. last i heard, if you had one and wanted to attempt a top-speed run, they woudl fly a guy out to you with race wheels and tires to help you try. anyone with a link to that?

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:On the road? by bev_tech_rob · 2004-04-28 03:59 · Score: 1

Would be fun to take out the the Bonneville salt flats for some runs, but would have to get some airplane tires and work on the aerodynamics to get some downforce....

--
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Re:On the road? by Krustyzeclown · 2004-04-28 05:40 · Score: 1

And what's the point of spending thousands of $$$ in a diamond ring when you can buy a cheap ring made of glass, that looks the same ?
What's the point of spending hundreds of $$$ in perfume when all you buy is 95% ethanol with some fragrance in it ?
What's the point of buying a Rolex when a simple Casio is sufficient ?
This is called luxury.
Buying a 1.000.000 car is luxury, and there's no logic with luxury. The people able and willing to buy such cars (how many of the people are there one earth ? 100? 500?) don't care how much it costs, they just want to buy "the most powerfull supercar currently in production".
And as you said, driving at 250+ MPH is not even feasable on highways. They will just stick to circuits...
Re:On the road? by Moofie · 2004-04-28 05:46 · Score: 1

Why would you need downforce on the salt flats? The air dam and the rear wing are plenty to keep the car stable, and the point of the salt flats is you don't have to turn...

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:On the road? by demachina · 2004-04-28 10:39 · Score: 1

"Who died and made you queen?"

How old are you. You sound like you must be in your late teens or twenties or you haven't been maturing at a normal rate. Most people after a few years of growing up realize what your doing just isn't worth it, either because you get busted a few times or you experience the horrors, one way or another, of auto accidents.

All I think you did was prove my point. There is no reason to license cars for the public highways that can run ridiculously in excess of the maximum speed limit and the maximum safe speed for those highways. You admit your using one to break the speed limit by 60-70 MPH pretty much every day. You are also clearly operating under the illusion/delusion you can safely run those kinds of speeds on public highways when you simply can't. Ever contemplate what will happen if you run over debris and have a blow out at those speeds. If your lucky you'll only kill yourself but you will be imposing on the emergency crew that has to cut your bloody carcass out of your car and clean up the mess.

I imagine you probably can run those speeds most of the time, but just stop and think about the possibility someone might have a breakdown in the middle of the night or be stuck on foot on that highway in dark clothing and you don't see them in time. I don't care how good you're brakes are, you still have to factor in reaction time and the foibles of human vision and concentration. Running those kind of speeds at night is especially stupid since your vision is dramaticly impaired, I don't care how good your headlights are. If something unexpected pops up at those speeds you must be about 10 times more likely to kill someone.

As I said in the original post, if you want to drive those speed go to a race track thats designed for it and have at it. There you are on a closed course and you aren't subjecting the rest of the world to what is apparently either immaturity or absence of wisdom. It only takes about 10 seconds for you to move from being stuck on your own superiority and the superiority of your car to regretting the rest of your life that you killed someone or maimed yourself or some innocent victim.

--
@de_machina
Re:On the road? by zero_offset · 2004-04-28 10:47 · Score: 1

Thanks, mom.

I never said it was a great idea, I just said you're flat out wrong asserting that you can't do it over a long period of time.

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

Random fact... by Chicane-UK · 2004-04-27 10:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Apparently the acceleratory (is that a word?) force of this car is so immense, that at full bore you are pulling the same kinds of G-Forces as you do on the vertical drops of a roller coaster ride.

Does 186MPH in 14 seconds.. must be a terrifying experience for both the driver, and for his wallet when he comes to fill it up! ;)

--
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"

Re:Random fact... by Bingo+Foo · 2004-04-27 10:23 · Score: 1

Vertical drops on a roller coaster are about as close as most people will get to sustained zero g in their lives. I think you are comparing to the wrong thing.

--
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:24 · Score: 0

All force doing work is acceleratory (F=m*a), so you can just say that the acceleration is so immense...

(Of course, immense implies a physical size and not a large number, but that's for another grammer nazi)
Re:Random fact... by CrayHill · 2004-04-27 10:30 · Score: 1

Nope! Parent's statement is just fine. The force of acceleration is simply measured by gravity equivalents and in this case has nothing to do with the earth's gravity. It is the acceleration that pushes you against the seat back.
Re:Random fact... by Bagheera · 2004-04-27 10:35 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm guessing you meant the G you feel at the -bottom- of the drop, which depends on the coaster, but I seem to remember is limited to under 2.5G for safety reasons. (I'm sure a coaster fan can confirm or correct this)

When you drop off the top, you get to accelerate at a little less than 1G (freefall minus any drag in the coaster), which, coincidentally, is about what it takes to make it to 60 MPH (~27M/sec) in 3 seconds.

So, in that regard you're more or less right.

Of course, the sad thing is that a decent sport bike can still beat it to 60, and some of them can give it a run for its money up to about 200.

--
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Re:Random fact... by Max+von+H. · 2004-04-27 10:36 · Score: 4, Informative

A good motorcycle like the latest Suzuki GSXR-1000 offers you the same acceleration (but not the same top speed), but much cheaper! It's a matter of power/weight ratio, therefore a bike which has a 180hp engine and weighs 170kgs like the 'zuki will have you cream your pants the same way ;)

It's not so terrifying, I assure you. Just... awesome!

--
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
Re:Random fact... by Greyfox · 2004-04-27 10:45 · Score: 1

Mmm... if your car's acceleration is measured in G force, it's pretty respectable acceleration.
I haven't seen gallon-per-mile figures yet but they do mention that it'd burn about 1.33 gallons (5 litres) per minute. Dumping gas through that thing must be like dumping a gallon of bad milk. Yeesh...

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Re:Random fact... by maevius · 2004-04-27 10:49 · Score: 1

A formula 1 driver accepts 5 G's when breaking from top speed. Veyron is just for kids....
Re:Random fact... by black+mariah · 2004-04-27 10:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Offtopic, but concerning roller coaster G forces. The G's at the base of drops are usually pretty low, maybe 2 or 3. More would slow the car down unneccesarily. At other points in the track G's may be higher. IIRC, the uphill corkscrew on the Titan at Six Flags Over Texas is somewhere around 6 G's. Heavy duty stuff.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:55 · Score: 1, Funny

Bah! I can accelerate 9.8m/s**2 in my sleep!
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:02 · Score: 2, Funny

As someone famous once said...
Drive FASTER.. until the THRILL OF SPEED overcomes the FEAR OF DEATH!
Re:Random fact... by Malc · 2004-04-27 11:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

To put that in to perspective, F1 cars were doing that a decade ago or more. Aryton Senna's car slowed 54mph in a fraction of a second pulling more than 4G before he left the road and had his fatal crash, according to this walk-through.
Re:Random fact... by Razor+Blades+are+Not · 2004-04-27 11:24 · Score: 1

The acceleration I think he's talking about is the change from free-fall to forward or upward motion. Furthermore, several rollercoasters have higher than 0g at their peaks, as they translate forward motion through the peak and into the downslide.
Re:Random fact... by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2004-04-27 11:34 · Score: 4, Informative

at 250 mph, that means he is traveling 4.17 miles in one minute, or about 4 times what you do in a normal minute when on a highway.

I come up with 3.13 mpg at 250 mph for the thing. Thats damn good.

But if he is crusing it won't take all that power, remember that fuel number was at full power. The driver would only be pulling full power with foot to the floor. A SUV may come with a 300hp engine to get it moving good, but it only needs ~18 hp to cruise at 55mph, and a car only needs ~15 hp to go 55. So most the time this car will be getting much better milage since like any vehicle it will only take ~15 hp for it to go highway speeds (if he goes that slow). so you could multiply his milage by 4-5 times. Also the car is very areodynamic, so it very well could do better then most cars out there.

Big powerfull engines only give you the potential to waste full, they do not cause the full usage. If you had 2 identical cars, but one has twice the HP they will both get the same mileage, but people being people many would get worse mileage with the more HP version since they would use it more and accel. faster. But for a driver who knows what they are doing they would get the same either way.

Still to say this thing sucks fuel based on peak power is not correct.

Oh and if you live in the US, gas is cheap, it's one of the cheapest substances on earth. Cheaper then milk, cheaper then water depending on how you purchase water, and gives you more of a return on your investment then damn near anything. Try going 30 miles (to and from any location) in a decent time frame for less then 2 bucks, only a car with a gallon of gas can do it that cheap.
Re:Random fact... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-27 11:39 · Score: 4, Interesting

Apparently the acceleratory (is that a word?) force of this car is so immense, that at full bore you are pulling the same kinds of G-Forces as you do on the vertical drops of a roller coaster ride.

The actual G forces really aren't much more than you can accomplish in a typical street car, it's just that high horsepower cars are able to sustain 1G acceleration for much longer than your typical commuter car.

With the same tires, my car would probably stay neck and neck with this thing up to about 30 MPH, but then my ability to accelerate starts being limited by horsepower instead of tire traction.

This actually has the interesting implication that if you know the fastest you ever want to go and can sustain 1G acceleration up to that point, any additional horsepower is a waste of weight which will detract from the vehicle's braking and cornering performance. (Tire frictional force is nonlinear WRT weight.)

(Note: I'm ignoring downforce.)

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 12:07 · Score: 0

ooh, you are in trouble with the spelling Nazis now, grammar boy.
Re:Random fact... by ShawnDoc · 2004-04-27 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Doesn't the Suzuki GSX-1300 Hyabusa do this also and for a lot less?
Re:Random fact... by Psychic+Burrito · 2004-04-27 12:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

I come up with 3.13 mpg at 250 mph for the thing

which is about 75 liters / 100km. Does anybody know how much gas the Veyron holds? 80 liter tanks are very common, so it could race a mere 100 km before needing to fill up. Plus this would mean that the tank is empty after 15 minutes or so... :-)

Anybody's got some real numbers?
Re:Random fact... by AaronPSU79 · 2004-04-27 12:38 · Score: 4, Informative

In a straight vertical drop you will be accelerating at G (9.8 m/s^2), and the g-force you will feel is zero (yes it may be slightly off due to wind resistance and such but you can assume zero). If this car can accelerate to 60 mph in 3 seconds its average horizontal g-force will be about 1G. So if we are traveling on a flat surface you will have 1G down (gravity), and 1G horizontal. Add the two together and you will end up with a max G of 1.4 at an angle of 45 degrees down from horizontal. In summary, accelerating in this car in a straight line your body will feel a max g of about 1.4, in a freefall vertical drop your body will feel 0G. So the poster was incorrect.
Re:Random fact... by Danse · 2004-04-27 12:39 · Score: 4, Funny

That's ok. If you haven't lost the cops within 15 minutes, you're screwed anyway :)

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:Random fact... by flink · 2004-04-27 12:39 · Score: 0

I believe in free fall you are experienceing 1g, i.e. an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.
Re:Random fact... by NewNole2001 · 2004-04-27 12:46 · Score: 1

0-60 in 3 seconds. Reminds me of the Aerosmith Rockin Roller Coaster at Disney World. It knocks the wind out of ya'.. I don't see how the driver of this car could hold onto the controls while accelerating like that.
Re:Random fact... by AaronPSU79 · 2004-04-27 12:59 · Score: 1

Wrong, in free fall you are experiencing 0 G. When you are sitting on your couch at home you are experiencing 1 G. Another example; when a plane is flying in a straight, horizontal line the pilot will be experiencing 1 G, if he noses the plane down so that he feels weightless he will be experiencing 0 G, identical to the feeling you get in free fall. You are correct though that the acceleration will be G, 9.8 m/s^2.
Re:Random fact... by operagost · 2004-04-27 13:32 · Score: 1

How could you ever lose the cops in this thing? It's fast, but pretty damn conspicuous. You might be able to out run the police cruiser, but you can't outrun the Motorolas.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Random fact... by JohnsonJohnson · 2004-04-27 13:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Big powerfull engines only give you the potential to waste full, they do not cause the full usage.

Correct.

If you had 2 identical cars, but one has twice the HP they will both get the same mileage,

Incorrect. Fuel consumption is based on a few variables, horsepower is not one of them. It is possible that two engines with widely different horespower ratings will have the same mileage performance but that's a matter of coincidence not science. As an example consider the highly efficient 100HP/liter powerplants in the S2000, 911 and M3 compared to the 5.7 liter (and that's a key number) powerplants of American muscle cars of a generation ago (Mustang, Camaro, Corvette etc.).

In general, mileage is a combination of compression ratio, engine size, gearing, torque curve, aerodynamic and mechanical (especially tire) efficiency, valve train mechanics and a host of other factors. Horsepower is simply not one of them.

but people being people many would get worse mileage with the more HP version since they would use it more and accel. faster.

Again, generally true

But for a driver who knows what they are doing they would get the same either way.

Again no, the largest factor in mileage these days is engine capacity. To run an engine you need to maintain stoichiometric balance of the fuel to air ratio, typically between 12 and 14 parts fuel to air by mass. The larger the engine capacity the worse the fuel efficiency at equivalent rpm and compreson ratios. Some manufacturers experimented with shutting down fuel flow to cylinders at cruise in order to make the engine effectively smaller. Emission problems due to accumulation of oil in deactivated cylinders, poor engine life due to thermal stress and pumping losses made that a failed technology. The next big thing in fuel efficiency for conventional piston engines is the variable timing and lift technology now available in BMW's 4.5liter V8 and soon to come form other manufacturers. Fully variable timing and lift allow optimization of pumping losses across the rev range, as well as improved combustion efficiency for higher torque at equivalent RPM, at the price of potentially larger valve train mechanical losses. Total power may also be limited by a lower RPM limit compared to other engines in the same class, although Formula 1 powerplants, which use a different but related valve control system, can apporach 20,000 rpm.

Still to say this thing sucks fuel based on peak power is not correct.

True, but the turbocharged (= high compression ratio at high rpm) 8! liter capacity of the engine doesn't help.
Re:Random fact... by Relyt · 2004-04-27 14:05 · Score: 2, Funny

It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
Re:Random fact... by Matey-O · 2004-04-27 14:14 · Score: 4, Informative

Bzzt. You're _mostly_ right, but you've got a few critical things wrong.

Mileage is partially caused by the efficiency of the motor, and partly by the efficiency of the package it's wrapped in. my 89 Corvette could easily get 30-32mpg (or 3), my PT cruiser, with it's smaller motor attached to its more efficient manual tranny, gets 26-28 depending on A/C use.

My _98_ Corvette, while it has much less drag than the 89 - has a much more advanced motor but gets 4-6mph worse mileage. Why? because they weighted the variables towards performance, rather than mileage. it's also immune to heat soak, and has fewer parts, in light of the throttle by wire system removing ASR, Cruise, and throttle mechanicals.

Several manufaturers are releasing a displacement on command feature. making the V8 a V4 by shutting down four cylinders and removing the oil that keeps the lifters filled (and hence, lifting valves.) GM, Porsche and IIRC BMW have motors announced.

The next really REALLY cool tech you'll see is a camless motor. Lotus has done a LOT of research on solenoid actuated valves. If there's no cam, there's no limitation to valve timing! You can tune the motor to optimum fuel efficiency, max low end torque or max upper end hp.

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Re:Random fact... by Deanasc · 2004-04-27 14:28 · Score: 1

Try going 30 miles (to and from any location) in a decent time frame for less then 2 bucks, only a car with a gallon of gas can do it that cheap
Actually, if you factor in depreciation, maintenance and insurance you are paying on the order of $10 for that trip. But that extra 8 bucks is generally worth it to not have to sit next to some crazy cat-throwing 80 year old woman who smells like pee and want's to call you Billy as she tells you about someone who died 30 years ago.

--
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Re:Random fact... by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2004-04-27 14:28 · Score: 1

You missed missed my point, this was a theoretical thing. As in the only differance was power, nothing about the way they made the power or type of engine. As in every single aspect was the same, just power differance, this means i'm not talking about differant engine types and how they made the power. Just pure theoretical.

Yes in reality it would be very difficult to produce two identical engines that one has twice the power. But that wasn't the point. The point was that so many people see something and it has 350HP "wow that must suck gas" that isn't true. I was boosting my point that the engine just gives a driver a potential to get bad mileage. I mean hell, on paper a manual will give you better mileage then an auto, but the reality is the way most people drive manual (myself included) drive it in a way they arn't going to get good mileage.

Sure I get 35mpg on the highway with my car, then i'm trying to get good mileage, in town i get 16-18 cause I don't care and am having more fun then anything. But if i wanted to i could be in the 20s in town.
Re:Random fact... by UniverseIsADoughnut · 2004-04-27 14:36 · Score: 1

Agreed, another thing so many miss is that over the past 2 decade emmissions has become King. In the big picture mileage isn't that important, nice, but not critical, what is important is emissions. And clean emissions and mileage to not go together very well. In the US the focus has been on emissions, in Europe and asia it was on mileage. Thats why you see high reving no torque engines from japan for mileage and diesels in Europe. But now those places have caught on that they went the wrong way. The are now making their engines more american like to reduce their emissions.

I work on HEVs and it's funny how many people talk about how great their mileage was on their 80s honda or toyota but there new one does worse. Then I have to point out emissions, that and you wouldn't want to see a new crash test on a 80s japanesse car. They had to add some steal. The japanese makers had to move away from high reving 4 bangers that make useless hp (hp where you don't use it but is good for advertising) and go to larger displacement slower speed engines.
Re:Random fact... by miracle69 · 2004-04-27 14:43 · Score: 1

ome manufacturers experimented with shutting down fuel flow to cylinders at cruise in order to make the engine effectively smaller. Emission problems due to accumulation of oil in deactivated cylinders, poor engine life due to thermal stress and pumping losses made that a failed technology.

Uh, that's been available as an emergency use setting in Cadillac's Northstar Engines, which has been in production for several years.

It's also a technology being used in the new Chrysler 300 series, and is called Multi Displacement System

--
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:44 · Score: 0

Are you ashamed of your lead-tipped arrow? They didn't weight anything towards performance - they weighted everything towards outright acceleration at the expense of handling, comfort, range and even styling. Get yourself a real car, dickless.

As for the PT cruiser, I don't have to comment - but do you own leather chaps too?
Re:Random fact... by Animaether · 2004-04-27 14:49 · Score: 2, Funny

I was about to make a potentially insightful post on the human muscalatory system and how it provides superior acceleration... until I read through to "200" and realized you meant motorbike, not bicycle :(
Re:Random fact... by JohnsonJohnson · 2004-04-27 15:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Bzzt. You're _mostly_ right, but you've got a few critical things wrong.

Fair enough, let's try it point by point because I'm feeling peevish.

Mileage is partially caused by the efficiency of the motor, and partly by the efficiency of the package it's wrapped in.

I believe I mentioned aerodynamic efficiency. Mechanical efficiency, like properly inflated tires, low rolling resistance tires (which is generally synonymous with low traction) and other effects also come into play. However I believe the message I was replying to was focused on the relationship of engine horsepower to mileage so I wanted to ignore packaging issues. Furthermore the original point was that horsepower cannot be used to infer mileage, but high horsepower does imply large engine displacement, holding the redline and compression ratio constant and allowing for similar engine material and component technology. Engine displacement is a large component of fuel efficiency and the Veyron's engine is huge in terms of displacement. There is simply no way (including caveats about red lines, compression etc.) to make an 8 liter engine as fuel efficient as a 3.5 liter engine.

My _98_ Corvette, while it has much less drag than the 89

I'd be surprised if that's really true, but I don't have anything at hand to answer that definitively. Suffice it to say though, Corvette's have generally gotten larger with each generation and whatever wind tunnel work has been done on the C5 may be offset by its increase frontal area with respect to the C4.

Several manufaturers are releasing a displacement on command feature. making the V8 a V4 by shutting down four cylinders and removing the oil that keeps the lifters filled (and hence, lifting valves.) GM, Porsche and IIRC BMW have motors announced.

Two nits to pick here: first of all what you are talking about is a variable number of active cylinders, a variable displacement engine actually changes the engine displacement without changing the number of active cylinders. Secondly, the idea of varying the number of active cylinders for efficiency is almost as old as the piston engine itself. No one has made one work reliably yet, so I'll consider it vaporware for now. For an idea as to how difficult this is to implement in practice, consider that we've got fully elctronically automated engines, hybrid powertrains and even Miller and Wankel designs all developed in the last 4 decades with no commercially produced variable active cylinder engines for automobiles yet.

The next really REALLY cool tech you'll see is a camless motor. Lotus has done a LOT of research on solenoid actuated valves.

While I appreciate the work of the wizards at Lotus as much as the next guy, this is more blue sky technology for the Popular Science "Aurora exists" crowd. Camless engines may become a regular production item someday, but at this point someday is no less than a decade or two away, just after they put the finishing touches on their fusion reactor. On the other hand, the existence of all these technologies makes GM's claim of producing a competitive fuel cell car by 2010 pretty silly. If you were working on technology that won't be productized for 10 or 20 years would you still do it if you knew it would be obsolete?

You can tune the motor to optimum fuel efficiency, max low end torque or max upper end hp.

Horsepower is torque times angular velocity, times a proportionality factor to take care of units. Thus max upper end HP is the same as max upper end torque. In general, current cam designs necessitate a trade off in the torque curve, although that is less the case with new engines, but that's a pecularity of the engineering not a fundamental difference between power and torque.

I don't even know why I wased my time writing this, like I said, just peevish I guess.
Re:Random fact... by Matey-O · 2004-04-27 15:12 · Score: 1

Get yourself a real car, dickless.

Dear, dear (homophobic) troll. What praytell do YOU consider a real car?

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Re:Random fact... by flink · 2004-04-27 15:17 · Score: 1

I don't dispute you, but it seems a strange way to account things. Certainly the vertical G I experience sitting in my chair at home feels different than the horizontal G I experience in a car undergoing acceleration.

In the case of the the chair the normal force of the surface I'm sitting on is counteracting the force of gravity so we have a total net force (and acceleration) of zero.

In the case of the car, there is obviously a net acceleration, so it seems strange to me that we call something that has a net value of 0 in one case and 9.8m/s^2 in another case 1 G just because of the direction of the vector involved.

Is there some kind of historical convention at work here?
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:29 · Score: 0

If you used all of those 350HPs all the time wen you were driving, you would'nt be getting 35MPG. That's the point.
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:37 · Score: 0

Real car? There are too many to list. I merely note that you own a car that says white, shitty job, balding, midlife crisis, lacks driving skill like no other car can.

Homophobic? Heheh... the first and last taunt of the flustered and flaming johnson-smoker!
Re:Random fact... by AaronPSU79 · 2004-04-27 15:53 · Score: 1

I think I see what you're saying, the difference is gravity acts on every part of your body so you dont "feel" the force acting on you, even though you are accelerating. The direction of the force vector should be irrelevant, and in the case of the car it will add up with the force of gravity to increase above 1 G. An easier way to think of it may be if you picture yourself holding an accelerometer, which many times is nothing more complicated than a weight hanging from a spring. Sitting on the couch the weight will stretch the spring some, 1 G. Accelerating in the car we have both gravity ,(1 G down), and the cars acceleration, (1 G horizontal), acting on it. These forces will sum together to 1.4 G acting 45 degrees down from horizontal. The spring should now be hanging at 45 degrees, stretched more than before. In free fall the spring should not be stretched at all, 0 G.
Re:Random fact... by fingusernames · 2004-04-27 16:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

The japanese makers had to move away from high reving 4 bangers that make useless hp (hp where you don't use it but is good for advertising) and go to larger displacement slower speed engines.

Uh, you mean useless HP when coupled to one of those nasty slushboxes. My 7500 RPM engine making most HP above 4500 RPM til redline makes me quite happy, but I drive stick so I can actually use it.

Larry
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:30 · Score: 1, Funny

It's a matter of power/weight ratio, therefore a bike which has a 180hp engine and weighs 170kgs like the 'zuki will have you cream your pants the same way ;)

Ewww...You're never getting a ride in my Bugatti, mister!
Re:Random fact... by agallagh42 · 2004-04-27 16:33 · Score: 1

A top fuel dragster can go from 0-320 mph in around 4 seconds, and they seem to be able to hang on ok. It's a hairy ride, I'm sure, but they manage. Those cars have well over 5000 HP by the way...

--
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
Re:Random fact... by NoData · 2004-04-27 16:57 · Score: 2, Informative

The next big thing in fuel efficiency for conventional piston engines is the variable timing and lift technology now available in BMW's 4.5liter V8 and soon to come form other manufacturers. Fully variable timing and lift allow optimization of pumping losses across the rev range, as well as improved combustion efficiency for higher torque at equivalent RPM, at the price of potentially larger valve train mechanical losses.

Can't mention dynamic valve train management for air/fuel optimization without proper credit to the pioneer: Honda's VTEC.
Introduced way back in 1989 on the Integra in Japan and on the NSX in 1990 in the US. Elegant engineering genius.
Re:Random fact... by MachDelta · 2004-04-27 17:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

The next really REALLY cool tech you'll see is a camless motor. Lotus has done a LOT of research on solenoid actuated valves.

...this is more blue sky technology...
Well, you'll be happy to know engineers are part way there. BMW has an experimental system that can infinitly and quickly (300ms) adjust valve timing and lift, called "Valvetronic". Coupled with their 'VANOS' technology, its pretty damned close to reaping the benefits of a "camless engine".
Mind you, its not perfect (yet), but it IS out on a few newer bimmers.

The future is (almost) now. :)
Re:Random fact... by my02wrxsti · 2004-04-27 17:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Plus the weight of the driver of course. The lighter the vehicle the more the mass of the passengers affects the power to weight ratio. I saw this demonstrated most graphically a few weekends ago when I compared transplanting my 105kg frame into a mates Lotus Elise (790kg) vs him in my Subaru Impreza WRX STi (1400kg). Everything was affected much more in the Elise: handling, braking and accceleration, than the WRX.

In the case of the bike, it would be significantly slower with me on board than some 45kg model. We are talking 1.5kg/hp versus 1.2kg/hp (about 25%) Still be brutally quick, but definitely slower.

Richard.
Re:Random fact... by Skynyrd · 2004-04-27 18:09 · Score: 1

Two nits to pick here: first of all what you are talking about is a variable number of active cylinders, a variable displacement engine actually changes the engine displacement without changing the number of active cylinders. Secondly, the idea of varying the number of active cylinders for efficiency is almost as old as the piston engine itself. No one has made one work reliably yet, so I'll consider it vaporware for now. For an idea as to how difficult this is to implement in practice, consider that we've got fully elctronically automated engines, hybrid powertrains and even Miller and Wankel designs all developed in the last 4 decades with no commercially produced variable active cylinder engines for automobiles yet.

Actually, GM sold many of them in the late 80's, although that's from memory and the date may be wrong.

They called it their 4-6-8 engine, and it was installed in Cads.
Re:Random fact... by NewNole2001 · 2004-04-27 18:14 · Score: 1

Their professionals, special driving license with much more stringent tests to get. Anyone with a million bucks can get one of these babies and take her for a spin. That person may not have the training and therefore skills to handle this type of acceleration.
Re:Random fact... by Laconian · 2004-04-27 20:05 · Score: 1

Two nits to pick here: first of all what you are talking about is a variable number of active cylinders, a variable displacement engine actually changes the engine displacement without changing the number of active cylinders. Secondly, the idea of varying the number of active cylinders for efficiency is almost as old as the piston engine itself. No one has made one work reliably yet, so I'll consider it vaporware for now. For an idea as to how difficult this is to implement in practice, consider that we've got fully elctronically automated engines, hybrid powertrains and even Miller and Wankel designs all developed in the last 4 decades with no commercially produced variable active cylinder engines for automobiles yet.

False. Chrysler's Hemi engine can switch off four of its cylinders when needed. This feature will be debuted in the 300C and the Magnum, which I believe will be hitting showrooms right about now.

The GM LS2 has a feature called "Displacement on Demand" that can switch off four of the eight cylinders when needed. It is not used on the Corvette right now because of NVH issues in the chassis, but they expect to employ it in their "high feature" engines sometime in the future.

The Cadillac 4-6-8 was a horrible engine and gave the technology a bad name. But right now the technology seems to be working pretty well.
Re:Random fact... by jez9999 · 2004-04-27 21:02 · Score: 1

Well, I read the article, but all I got for the last link was this: 'We couldn't find any product matches on Shopping.com for "the Bugatti Veyron"'. Darnit I want one.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Random fact... by zero_offset · 2004-04-27 23:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Several manufaturers are releasing a displacement on command feature. making the V8 a V4 by shutting down four cylinders and removing the oil that keeps the lifters filled (and hence, lifting valves.) GM, Porsche and IIRC BMW have motors announced.

GM did this on the 6 cylinder Grand Prix GTP as far back as 1995. They're doing it on Caddy's this year. Add Benz and Chrysler to that list, too. Benz has announced it, and Chrysler offers it in the 5.7L Hemi 300C.

Speaking of mileage, my 525 HP Viper, which runs about 9 MPG in city driving, is capable of about 28 MPG as long as I can maintain a steady ~100 MPH in sixth gear (which is only 2000 RPM). I was surprised to discover this little factoid driving home from the Petit Le Mans at Road Atlanta in the middle of the night a few years ago. Calculating that you just milked 28 MPG for a full tank in a Viper is a real shocker...

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:Random fact... by Matey-O · 2004-04-27 23:36 · Score: 1

Hmph, I bought the _second_ vette (both of which I still own) at 26. I guess I'll be dead at 45 if that's a mid-life crisis. The first vette's turned into a serious hacker excercize with a homebuilt motor and tranny...and it turns mid-12's in the quartermile. It's also seen quite a bit of tracktime.

As far as driving skill in the twisties, I'll bet I've had more PROFESSIONAL instruction than you've encountered.

Step out from behind that AC and we'll debate on a rational level.

(And I'm not 'biting' on that johnson comment. The overwhelming majorities of gays and Bi-s I know are wonderful people...not a single troll amongst 'em.)

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Re:Random fact... by Enigma_Man · 2004-04-28 01:07 · Score: 2, Informative

>True, but the turbocharged (= high compression ratio at high rpm) 8! liter capacity of the engine doesn't help.

Actually, the compression ratio is unaffected by turbocharging. The compression ratio is a static number which represents the ratio of largest cylinder volume to smallest cylinder volume, depending on where the piston is.

If you add a turbocharger into it, you haven't changed the volume of the cylinders, just how much air is filling them. The Ratio is still the same.

Point of interest though, there are some manufacturers out there that have been developing variable compression ratio engines. This is useful in turbocharging applications, because when off the boost, you can run a nice, high, efficient compression ratio, for good gas mileage. When you romp on the happy pedal, and the turbos spool, the compression ratio will drop, allowing a higher boost pressure, because a lower compression ratio is less succeptable to knocking. It is generally the case that more power is available from turbocharging than from compression ratio.

-Jesse

--
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Re:Random fact... by rhs98 · 2004-04-28 01:36 · Score: 1

With the same tires, my car would probably stay neck and neck with this thing up to about 30 MPH, but then my ability to accelerate starts being limited by horsepower instead of tire traction.

Assuming you had 4WD, traction control, and launch control (and it was all as good as that of a Veyron - which I doubt), you would have problems with 1) your clutch - doing a lauch with massive tires would probably cause it to slip if you had enough power or 2) stall the engine (if you had less power/good clutch), or 3) you would get too much grip and your engine would bog down, or 4) you would break a driveshaft

Basically, you've got no chance against a veyron, even to 30mph. The Veyron is designed to have 1000bhp (and rumoured to be capable of 1000kw) - and so would have less worry about these problems, your mitia or whatever was not designed for 0-30 runs with massive tires

--
Is it a boat?
Re:Random fact... by 74nova · 2004-04-28 01:57 · Score: 1

With the same tires, my car would probably stay neck and neck with this thing up to about 30 MPH, but then my ability to accelerate starts being limited by horsepower instead of tire traction
i call BS. care to prove that? i dont care how much traction my little 92hp eclipse has, it isnt going to take the bugatti even to 30mph. that little engine just cant pull hard enough to get my car moving along with that 1khp beast. it isnt going to happen. put stickies on mine and put my tires on that bugatti and it wouldnt matter. im willing to hear some proof from you.

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Re:Random fact... by asylum · 2004-04-28 02:11 · Score: 1

It is possible that two engines with widely different horespower ratings will have the same mileage performance but that's a matter of coincidence not science. As an example consider the highly efficient 100HP/liter powerplants in the S2000, 911 and M3 compared to the 5.7 liter (and that's a key number) powerplants of American muscle cars of a generation ago (Mustang, Camaro, Corvette etc.).

You're confusing specific output and fuel efficiency here. Acheiving 100hp/liter is an impressive engineering feat, and has packaging and weight advantages for the design of the vehicle. However, it has nothing to do with fuel efficiency.

Look at your own examples: the 3.3L 333hp BMW M3 is rated at 16/23mpg. The modern Corvette still has a 5.7L motor making 375hp and gets 19/28 mpg.

They are both stunning motors. However, the Corvette makes more power and gets better mileage - although at a slight weight and size penalty.
Re:Random fact... by TheCrazyFinn · 2004-04-28 02:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Except for the fact that the Japanese makers have been moving towards high-revving 4-bangers.

Seen the power curves and redline on an i-VTEC or Toyota VVT engine these days? 8-9000 rpm redline, peak power at over 7000rpm. Much higher revving than anything they put out in the 80's, where they were preferring higher-torque lower-revving blocks.

Of course, some Japanese makers are still using the same blocks they were in the 80's (Mitsubishi and their 4G63 block most notably).

--
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
Re:Random fact... by Matey-O · 2004-04-28 02:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

The nitpicking began when you mentioned the Cadillac 8-6-4 tech was the current high water mark for Displacement on Demand. That's _Displacement on Demand_....GM's words, not mine.

While Saab (a GM owned company) does have a motor that changes displacement (and hence compression ratio) in the lab, there's not any planned usage for it yet. DoD has been announced for several 2005 model year Cadillacs. (Whether they make it to production or not remains to be seen, but the pre-production test drives are VERY telling.)

My _98_ Corvette, while it has much less drag than the 89 I'd be surprised if that's really true, but I don't have anything at hand to answer that definitively. Suffice it to say though, Corvette's have generally gotten larger with each generation and whatever wind tunnel work has been done on the C5 may be offset by its increase frontal area with respect to the C4.
Believe what you like. The 89's a convertible with a, like .45 Cd...the 98's a coupe with a 0.28 Cd. Granted, drag is crossectional area * Cd, but the C5 doesn't cut a much larger hole than the C4. Given both cars, at highway speeds, the C4 got noticable better mileage...at a near 100 hp deficit.
Engine displacement is a large component of fuel efficiency and the Veyron's engine is huge in terms of displacement.
Displacement is a component in efficiency only at wide extremes of the envelope; very very small motors (600cc) or very very large ones (The aforementioned Veryon. Which I doubt had mileage ANYWHERE NEAR the list of design criteria.) in the range of 2 to 6 liters, you can make damn near ANY motor configuration make killer amounts of power, or very very good milege. If you're good, you can get a lot of both, while giving up some of the ultimate power (or mileage).

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Re:Random fact... by JohnsonJohnson · 2004-04-28 03:00 · Score: 1

OK, it sounds like this technology is starting to make it to mass market. Let's see if it lasts. As I said before, there have been attempts to do this before and they have been less than successful. The fact that GM only deactivates cylinders in limp home mode may indicate that they can't do it on a regular basis for fuel economy. Also since Saab is a division of GM and pursuing a different method of varying displacement that could be a sign that deactivating cylinders is not an optimal solution. Maybe Daimler-Chrysler has solved that problem, or maybe it's the second coming of active suspension; another neat technology that failed to catch on in the market place, time will tell.
Re:Random fact... by agallagh42 · 2004-04-28 03:02 · Score: 1

My point was that the Bugatti's acceleration is several times less than that of the dragster, therefore it would be well within the limits of most people to hang on to it.

For reference, assuming linear acceleration, a dragster averages ~3.6g during it's 0-320mph run. It's probably higher at the beginning of the run, and lower as it's approaching the top speed, but I don't have the data to do that calculation.

The Bugatti on the other hand, averages ~0.9g during it's 0-60mph run, and only ~0.6g if you average over the 0-186mph stretch. Still very impressive for a street legal car, but nothing close to a dragster.

--
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
Re:Random fact... by JohnsonJohnson · 2004-04-28 03:07 · Score: 1

You're right, I was sloppy with my terms. The compression ratio is defined as the ratio of the maximum to minimum area of the cylinder. I just meant that once the turbo spools up the air is compressed before reaching the cylinder leading to a higher effective compression ratio than a naturally aspirated engine of the same geometry would have. More air requires more fuel, so turbocharging trades fuel efficiency for volumetric efficiency. In general a turbocharged engine acts like an engine of larger displacement, and suffers similar fuel efficiency penalties. Coupled with the huge displacement of the Veyron engine it's obvious that fuel economy is going to suffer. Not that it's really a concern for this type of automobile, although Porsche is making an effort to produce high performance engines that don't have poor efficiency at lower power, like the GT3.
Re:Random fact... by phasm42 · 2004-04-28 03:08 · Score: 1

I just read about this... on Forbe's list of the top ten worst cars ever. Apparently the system was failure prone and sucked ass.

--
"No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
Re:Random fact... by stanmann · 2004-04-28 03:09 · Score: 1

They are professionals, but driving license...

UH UH. You see they are running on private property and thusly don't need any sort of license.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Random fact... by Skynyrd · 2004-04-28 03:28 · Score: 1

I just read about this... on Forbe's list of the top ten worst cars ever. Apparently the system was failure prone and sucked ass.

Yup. Almost every Cad in the 80's was a complete turd, and this didn't help.

Remember the Cimarron? It was a Chevy Cavalier, which at the time was a steaming pile of shit, although newer ones are much better. They put on "gold" badges and leather seats and made Cad dealers sell them.

It was a very dark decade or two for GM.
Re:Random fact... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-28 03:31 · Score: 2, Informative

i call BS. care to prove that? i dont care how much traction my little 92hp eclipse has, it isnt going to take the bugatti even to 30mph.

f=ma f=2600 lbs * 1 G f=2600 lbs of force (force required at tire) tire size: 205/60-15 tire outer diameter: 25.4x15 + 2(205*.60) = 627mm tire radius = 313.5mm = 1.028 feet required torque at wheels = 2600 lbs * 1.208 feet = 3140.8 ft-lbs required RPM for 30 MPH: 2 * 1.028 ft * pi * RPM * 1/5280 mi/ft * 60 min/hr= 30 MPH RPM = 408.725 1st gear drive ratio = 3.475 read end driver ratio = 4.1 required engine RPM = 408.725 * 3.475 * 4.1 = 5823.31 RPM required engine torque = 3140.8 ft-lbs / (3.475 * 4.1) = 220 foot pounds required "wheel" horsepower = (220 * 5823.21)/5252 required "wheel" horsepower = 243.927
So your eclipse might not be able to do it, but an RX-7 like mine would be able to (my particular model would need some performance work first but a stock thrid gen would do nicely). A lightly-modded turbo Eclispe should also have no problem keeping up to 30 MPH.

In any case, my point was that the "acceleration" of this car isn't a stronger force than you could achieve with a decent car up to 20 or 30 MPH, it's just that the veyron is able to sustain 1G acceleration for longer.

The original post was acting as if this car was going to push you against the seat back harder then you've ever been pushed before.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Random fact... by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-28 03:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you were working on technology that won't be productized for 10 or 20 years would you still do it if you knew it would be obsolete?
The problem is, you don't know. Most technologies that look promising end up being abandoned or relegated to niches: think about Chrysler's turbine engine for passenger cars and Mazda's Wankel, respectively.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Random fact... by JohnsonJohnson · 2004-04-28 04:41 · Score: 1

I specifically said muscle cars of a generation ago (about a decade in car technology terms) for a reason. Corvettes have significantly improved in terms of fuel efficiency and horsepower over the years. The C6 engine is an engineering marvel, producing 400HP with good fuel efficiency. The BMW M3 powerplant is more comparable in power to the base engine in the C4 'vettes, which is why I specified older muscle cars. I know the 'vette isn't typically considered a muscle car, but its engine is more similar to a muscle car engine: a large displacement, pushrod V8 than other sports cars.

Anyway, gearing works against the M3. The city mileage is based on running the car at a constant 20mph, the highway at 48mph. Thanks to gearing the M3 has to turn anywhere from 1.2 to 1.5 times the rate of the vette to maintain the same speed. Factoring in the M3's higher compression ratio and the M3's advantage due to smaller capacity almost vanishes. By my back of the envelope calculations you'd still expect a small efficiency advantage for the M3 engine, but much less than the advantage it enjoys due to displacement, but I'm sure we can make that disappear if we took intake and exhaust inefficiencies into account. An M3 with lower gear ratios would regain fuel efficiency at the cost of no longer being a high performance car.
Re:Random fact... by Moofie · 2004-04-28 05:51 · Score: 1

You haven't accounted for the fact that the Veyron will light up all four tires and blow your RX7 into the weeds.

(btw, I love RX7's, but the Veyron is in a class of its own...)

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 06:09 · Score: 0

You mean driving to a nearby garage at high speed and getting a paint job within seconds is not an option?
Re:Random fact... by KnarfO · 2004-04-28 06:30 · Score: 1

You're right; Bugatti needs to figure out a way to put their W16 engine in one of these :-)

--

"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
Re:Random fact... by Fortress · 2004-04-28 06:36 · Score: 1

Why do you assume 1G of acceleration? Top fuel dragsters exceed 5G at the start of their run, before downforce takes effect. There is no arbitrary limit to accelerative G force other than the compound of the tires and the characteristics of the tarmac.

I'm sure some are thinking right now that friction is defined as the coefficient of friction (mu) times the downforce, by definition 1G. This is true for simple friction, but what goes on with a tire is slightly different. The soft rubber "keys" itself to the tarmac and must be torn to slip. Thus, the tensile strength of the tire compound determines the grip, and this interaction is not adequately described by the traditional friction formula.
Re:Random fact... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-28 07:24 · Score: 1

Why do you assume 1G of acceleration?

Because I find it the most reasonable number to assume. Especially for a street-driven sports car.

Top fuel dragsters exceed 5G at the start of their run, before downforce takes effect.

Yes but their tires don't exactly last a long time, and the police wouldn't take too kindly to you doing burnouts at every single stoplight.

I'm sure some are thinking right now that friction is defined as the coefficient of friction (mu) times the downforce, by definition 1G. This is true for simple friction, but what goes on with a tire is slightly different. The soft rubber "keys" itself to the tarmac and must be torn to slip. Thus, the tensile strength of the tire compound determines the grip, and this interaction is not adequately described by the traditional friction formula.

All this is correct, but a linear approximation of F=un is good enough for a "back of the envelope" calculation of what a normal street car can do.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 08:08 · Score: 0

Secondly, the idea of varying the number of active cylinders for efficiency is almost as old as the piston engine itself. No one has made one work reliably yet, so I'll consider it vaporware for now. For an idea as to how difficult this is to implement in practice, consider that we've got fully elctronically automated engines, hybrid powertrains and even Miller and Wankel designs all developed in the last 4 decades with no commercially produced variable active cylinder engines for automobiles yet.
Incorrect. The Cadillac 8-6-4 engine was in production at least by 1981. I know of a functioning, reliable 1981 Seville with the 8-6-4 that exists today. Well, OK, maybe reliable is a stretch since we're talking about a Caddy here, but there provably have been "commercially produced variable active cylinder engines for automobiles".

Of course, what most of you guys are saying is basically correct; that overall engine design for fuel efficiency is much, much more than just juggling horsepower and displacement.

There have been some really shitty engines with great efficiency, and some really powerful engines with decent mileage, etc. etc. etc.. A vehicle is more than just a bunch of HP, mileage and torque ratings.
Re:Random fact... by dublin · 2004-04-28 08:18 · Score: 1

OK, it sounds like this technology is starting to make it to mass market. Let's see if it lasts. As I said before, there have been attempts to do this before and they have been less than successful. The fact that GM only deactivates cylinders in limp home mode may indicate that they can't do it on a regular basis for fuel economy.

It will last. GM's Northstar and Aurora V8's have offered this for several years, not to save fuel, but to allow the car to continue to run at reduced power output even if it's lost all its coolant.

Remember the commercial from a few years ago where the Cadillac engineers drain their radiator before heading off into the desert? This really works, and in reality, it's just a simple software tweak, which is basically variable displacement: Instead of firing every time, each cylinder is alternately fired one cycle, and then just has air pumped through it on the next. Power output is cut in half, of course, but this air-cooling effect works well enough that it is possible to continue to drive the car (with air conditioning!) even in the event of a total cooling system failure. That's a pretty neat trick for a software hack.

I suspect variable displacement will gain as much ground in the next few years as variable valve timing has in the last few. In fact, once the hardware for the latter is in place, the former becomes much easier - there are lots of reasons why this is likely to become a mainstream technology, and economics is the biggest.

--
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 09:15 · Score: 0

As for the top speed, open class sport bikes have been electronically speed limited to 189mph for the last couple years.
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 10:28 · Score: 0

"driving skill in the twisties"

If you had any you would not be happy owning a Corvette. Period.
Re:Random fact... by NewNole2001 · 2004-04-28 10:36 · Score: 1

You see they are running on private property and thusly don't need any sort of license.
On the contrary, while the kiddies racing souped up hondas at the local drag strip may not need a license, to race any NHRA sponsered event, which would include the top fuel events that I am speaking in reference to the 0-320 in 4 seconds, you will need a special NHRA license. They don't want any yacko with the money to put one of those cars together to be able to race it, so they have a special license you must obtain before you can race in their events. The criteria for this license are much much much more stringent than the parallel parking, etc.. needed to recieve a normal state-issued license.
Re:Random fact... by NewNole2001 · 2004-04-28 10:40 · Score: 1

If you haven't experienced this type of acceleration, you wouldn't understand. Let me put it to you this way: Disney uses this level of acceleration on a thrill ride. Having ridden this roller coaster a number of times, I know what 0-60 in three seconds feels like, and without a good deal of practice, I know that I, and most everyone else around wouldn't be able to onto this car.
Re:Random fact... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 12:04 · Score: 0

That's what Honda's VTEC is for!
Re:Random fact... by agallagh42 · 2004-04-28 13:39 · Score: 1

Well, I've been on the Top Thrill Dragster coaster at Cedar Point. It does 0-120mph in around 4 seconds (0-60 in less than 2). Yes, it's pretty extreme, but I think I'd still be able to hold on to the steering wheel if there was one there. The Bugatti is significantly slower than that.

--
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
Re:Random fact... by Wolfrider · 2004-04-28 15:35 · Score: 1

> Oh and if you live in the US, gas is cheap, it's one of the cheapest substances on earth. Cheaper then milk, cheaper then water depending on how you purchase water, and gives you more of a return on your investment then damn near anything. Try going 30 miles (to and from any location) in a decent time frame for less then 2 bucks, only a car with a gallon of gas can do it that cheap.

--You're forgetting Motorcycles and Scooters (of which Scooters will more than likely get the best MPG ratio.)

--According to the following link, the Honda Elite got around 75MPG:

http://www3.telus.net/dougsimpson/Road_2.html ...and that's a 250cc scooter, one of the larger ones. 50-100cc engines *may* do even better (I haven't researched it, above link was from googling for "honda scooters mpg".)

--
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:Random fact... by stanmann · 2004-04-28 23:12 · Score: 1

NHRA is not the state, so it isn't a license regardless what they call it. An NHRA "license" doesn't allow one to drive on the street and actually, the criteria aren't that stringent, you simply have to demonstrate solo that you can point your car in a straight line and drive. Licence app

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:Random fact... by Matey-O · 2004-04-29 01:13 · Score: 1

goddamn you're funny. You make all these claims about how inadequate the Corvette is and yet you've mentioned nothing to back it up. Sounds like I'm not the one with feelings of inadequacy.

--
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Re:Random fact... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-29 06:05 · Score: 1

In a straight vertical drop you will be accelerating at G (9.8 m/s^2), and the g-force you will feel is zero (yes it may be slightly off due to wind resistance and such but you can assume zero).

Actually, you would feel 1 G of force it's just that you ALWAYS feel 1 G of force pulling you towards the center of the earth. You're used to it.

If this car can accelerate to 60 mph in 3 seconds its average horizontal g-force will be about 1G. So if we are traveling on a flat surface you will have 1G down (gravity), and 1G horizontal. Add the two together and you will end up with a max G of 1.4 at an angle of 45 degrees down from horizontal. In summary, accelerating in this car in a straight line your body will feel a max g of about 1.4, in a freefall vertical drop your body will feel 0G. So the poster was incorrect.

Actually, you still feel 1G of force in the horizontal direction, regardless of the vertical forces. Anyways, calling someone "wrong" using this explanation is crazy because in the case of freefall, you're saying that you can't feel the 1G of vertical force, yet in the case of the car, you're suddenly are able to feel it?

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Random fact... by NewNole2001 · 2004-04-29 06:06 · Score: 1

So you are telling me that when a software company grants me a "license" to use they're software, that since they are not the state that it is not really a license? I don't follow your reasoning. And pointing a car in a straight line and driving is not as simple as it seems when you are dealing with acceleration that we are talking about here. Of course the NHRA can't give a license that allows one to drive on the streets. They don't own the streets. They do, however, either own the tracks or are the sanctioning body for these tracks, which gives them the right to grant licenses. They have every right to say that if you don't have one of their licenses that you can't drive at their track.

My car is better... by SoCalChris · 2004-04-27 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

My lowely little GMC minivan is far better than this car. I can fit the kids, my wife, our double stroller, and a whole bunch of groceries/luggage/cargo, etc in it confortably, pay about $350/month for it, and still get around 20mpg.

Not that the Bugatti wouldn't be a lot of fun, but I doubt I'd have my license very long if I owned one of those.

Re:My car is better... by The+Other+White+Boy · 2004-04-27 10:37 · Score: 3, Informative

by your logic, a honda civic could do the same thing at $200/mo and 38mpg.

i'll take the supercar, thanks. if you can afford a million dollar car, methinks gas, insurance costs and traffic fines are of little concern. =)
Re:My car is better... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:44 · Score: 0

Sure you would. You'd either run from the cops or pay off the judge.
Re:My car is better... by starm_ · 2004-04-27 10:44 · Score: 3, Funny

You're lucky there isn't a moderation
-1 Excessive use of reality
Re:My car is better... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:52 · Score: 0

i'll take the supercar, thanks. if you can afford a million dollar car, methinks gas, insurance costs and traffic fines are of little concern. =)

You and Billy Joel.
Re:My car is better... by Tackhead · 2004-04-27 11:01 · Score: 3, Funny

> Not that the Bugatti wouldn't be a lot of fun, but I doubt I'd have my license very long if I owned one of those.
They have to catch you before they can charge you.
"Next week... on FOX! World's Wildes-HOLY FARK, LOOK AT THAT CAR GO!"
Re:My car is better... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

My lowely little GMC minivan is far better than this car. I can fit the kids, my wife, our double stroller, and a whole bunch of groceries/luggage/cargo, etc in it confortably, pay about $350/month for it, and still get around 20mpg.

Yeah, but can you drive it down the main strip on a Friday night and end up getting laid by the hottest looking chick in town solely because of the car? You see... shallow love *can* be deep too! :)
Re:My car is better... by gl4ss · 2004-04-27 11:29 · Score: 1

you can't sell the GMC minivan and be 'set for life' with the money.

so the bugatti is a lot better to have...

.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:My car is better... by fireman+sam · 2004-04-27 13:02 · Score: 1

The only insurance you would need is for theft because if you hit anything and 250mph there would not be much of you or whatever you hit.

btw, I would have liked to see in that story a bit of the saftey features. For example, what would happen to the driver/passenger if they hit something at 250mph.

--
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Re:My car is better... by tadheckaman · 2004-04-27 13:23 · Score: 1

Ejection Seats...

--
My potato gun was confiscated by the United Nations. They said I wasn't allowed to have weapons of mash destruction.
Re:My car is better... by OO7david · 2004-04-27 13:30 · Score: 1

well, it gets 1.33 gallons / minute at full burn. So I think I'd have a better chance of getting away, what with my 50 mpg diesel vw.
Re:My car is better... by JPriest · 2004-04-27 13:37 · Score: 1

"what would happen to the driver/passenger if they hit something at 250mph."
Just google for wood chipper.

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Re:My car is better... by Delita · 2004-04-27 13:52 · Score: 1

The trick isn't going faster than a patrol car, it's going faster than the radio in a patrol car.
Re:My car is better... by JPriest · 2004-04-27 13:52 · Score: 1

To be honest though, you can get a honda civic to go about 135 mp/h for a little over $1000 in parts. Many station wagos these days will hit 120 mp/h if you pull the governer.
I don't know where I could hit 250 mp/h anyway, but I can pick up a light turbocharged 2.5 liter for $30,000 (wrx sti) that will go as fast as I would need it to.

--
Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
Re:My car is better... by agallagh42 · 2004-04-27 16:38 · Score: 1

Hell, I've had my stock 4-cylinder Accord up to 127mph, and it wasn't done accelerating when I gave up. I just wanted to get over that magic number of 200km/h.

A completely empty stretch of highway at 6am on Sunday is a lot of fun :)

--
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
Re:My car is better... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 05:50 · Score: 0

Damn sunday drivers!
Re:My car is better... by thadeusg · 2004-04-28 06:19 · Score: 1

That's not really the problem either..granted on a highway the problem is radio/aircraft..but if you're going to run from the cops you won't be on the highway long, if at all.

In the city or on nice mountain roads, having a radio is nice and all, but it doesn't mean that they can _find_ you. Let's see a Crown Vic hold turns like this thing does. ;)
Re:My car is better... by DerekLyons · 2004-04-28 07:24 · Score: 1

Not that the Bugatti wouldn't be a lot of fun, but I doubt I'd have my license very long if I owned one of those.

They have to catch you before they can charge you.

Radio waves *far* outrun the car.

*yawn* Oooooold "news" by coug_ · 2004-04-27 10:19 · Score: 1

This car has been in the works for two years (maybe longer) now with repeated release delays and increasing costs. I have my doubts that VWAG will ever actually produce and sell one of these vehicles.

Re:*yawn* Oooooold "news" by PrintError · 2004-04-27 10:20 · Score: 1

They'll sell at least one.

You think Jay Leno could pass this bastard up?
Re:*yawn* Oooooold "news" by coug_ · 2004-04-27 10:38 · Score: 1

They'll sell at least one.

You think Jay Leno could pass this bastard up?

Yes, actually... Jay's not a big fan of German cars in general... most of his cars are British, Italian, and U.S.-made :).
Re:*yawn* Oooooold "news" by merdaccia · 2004-04-27 11:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

... I have my doubts that VWAG will ever actually produce and sell one of these vehicles.

They have definitely produced one. It's sitting in the Bugatti showroom on Friedrichstrasse in Berlin. Quite amusing actually. Normally happy families are torn apart as the wives and daughters run off to gaze in the haute couture windows, while the guys stand there with their faces plastered to the glass.

--
*blinking cursor*
Re:*yawn* Oooooold "news" by Lord+Grey · 2004-04-27 14:19 · Score: 1

Here is one for sale, for (Euro) 1,299,000.
Place your orders now....

--
// Beyond Here Lie Dragons
Re:*yawn* Oooooold "news" by agallagh42 · 2004-04-27 16:43 · Score: 1

However, his current daily driver is a McLaren-Mercedes SLR. He seems to like it quite a bit too.

http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/sub_coll_le no/2003/11/driving_the_future/print.phtml

--
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer

Audio by lindec · 2004-04-27 10:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Veyron is an interesting ride. It has one of the few W16 engines out there, not to mention quad turbos. One of the most amusing facts about the Veyron is the amount of effort that went into the sound system. Apparently, Bugatti demanded audio perfection, even when screaming along at 252 mph. I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but I think I 'd have larger concerns than the quality of my audio, if I was cruising at 252...

Re:Audio by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:28 · Score: 0

Excellent! These are my kind of engineers building a car that I would lust over. Maybe I should setup an internet tip jar since I'm a little short on the scrilla.

Hey buddy, can I get a loan?
Re:Audio by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:34 · Score: 0

Well, I'm glad Bugatti paid attention to the fast and the furious even if /.ers don't. subwoofers add like 20Hp. tv in the dash does way more than... what was it...quad turbos? shit, that thing needs some nos...
Re:Audio by kfg · 2004-04-27 10:48 · Score: 3, Informative

. . .Bugatti demanded audio perfection. . .

No. Bugatti never put a radio in one of his cars. The very idea smacks of sacrilige.

You can paint a VW blue and put a little red oval on its nose, but that doesn't make it a Bugatti.

The very idea is like my being able to buy the rights to "brand" myself Van Gough.

KFG
Re:Audio by AndroidCat · 2004-04-27 11:01 · Score: 1

Banding isn't quite the requirement for the Van Gough label. :p

--
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Re:Audio by reidbold · 2004-04-27 12:54 · Score: 1

Don't worry, you can't even hear the radio at that speed. I recall reading about a McLaren car that would automatically shut the radio off once you reached a high enough speed, since there was no hope of hearing it anyways.

--
-Reid
Re:Audio by Darby · 2004-04-27 13:04 · Score: 1

I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but I think I 'd have larger concerns than the quality of my audio, if I was cruising at 252...

Sure, so would I. Like keeping my hands on the wheel and my eyes on the road. ....which is tough to do if you have to turn up the volume to hear it over the engine ;-)
Re:Audio by kfg · 2004-04-27 14:27 · Score: 1

Should I just go for the tatoo then? :)

KFG
Re:Audio by buck_wild · 2004-04-27 14:31 · Score: 1

"...I think I 'd have larger concerns than the quality of my audio, if I was cruising at 252..."

At 250+ I'm pretty sure my concern would be the capacity of my diaper.

--
If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Re:Audio by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:52 · Score: 0

Throw some neon lights underneat, and a bunch of stickers on the fenders, and you could nearly double the power!
Re:Audio by genka · 2004-04-28 01:31 · Score: 1

Good point. The linked article also mentions some misterious "Bugatti engineers". I would have my doubts even if they used a singlular instead. Bugatti has no engineers, all they do is marketing, design and manufacturing is by VW.

Ouch by Tuna_Shooter · 2004-04-27 10:20 · Score: 0

What an arrogant attitude... ( most ./'s cannot afford this).... i have cars that will go in reverse faster that this POS....

--
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*

Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:21 · Score: 4, Funny

You have a French tank?
Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:40 · Score: 0

holy cripes, if you hadnt posted AC youd have totally just gotten yourself a funny mod from me. best post i've read in weeks.
Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:43 · Score: 0

I just discovered I can only post twice a day with 'terrible' karma. Who knew :(
Re:Ouch by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:46 · Score: 0

i'd give you some of my excellent if i could.

ooh, karma donations! someone edit the slashcode!
Re:Ouch by Tuna_Shooter · 2004-04-27 12:19 · Score: 1

not very nice bud.... French tanks don't have a reverse or didn't you know ??

--
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
Re:Ouch by meringuoid · 2004-04-27 21:48 · Score: 2, Funny

You have a French tank?

Nope... French tanks are the ones with enormous firepower, great performance, and terrific soldiers inside them, but which are unfortunately in entirely the wrong location. British tanks are the ones the Americans give the joke IFF circuits to. German tanks are the ones we hope like hell they never decide to use again.

It's Italian tanks that have the high reverse performance.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Ouch by Thomas+Miconi · 2004-04-27 23:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Actually the French made the most impressive tank ever (the Leclerc).

A swift, powerful, costly masterpiece of technology. The most reliable defence against what was then regarded as the main threat for France and Western Europe: a Soviet invasion.

Unfortunately the production began two years after the Berlin Wall fell.

Now the few Leclerc tanks that have actually been produced and sold gather dust in French territories or in the Arab emirates.

Typical French: "Toujours en retard d'une guerre" (always one war backwards).

Thomas Miconi

Re:What? by Neil+Blender · 2004-04-27 10:20 · Score: 2, Funny

I have a Veyron you insensitive clod!

Modding your 1982 Pinto doesn't count.

Automotive Vaporware by eericson · 2004-04-27 10:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anyone care to put money on this car making it to market?

The Bugatti Veyron is the last gasp of Piech's reign at VW (He had a thing for supercars and old nameplates). It's been plauged with reliablity issues and has cost VW a fortune to develop.

(Kinda sounds like Rhapsody a bit, doesn't it?)

-E2

--
The evil monkey commands you to dance.

Re:Automotive Vaporware by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-04-27 10:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Interesting how VW is buying the naming rights to famous names. They also have rights to use the Rolls Royce name. Still just VW inside.
Interesting to note too that VW started out as the car maker for the "volk", ie the unwashed masses. Seems like they've lost their roots.

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by T3kno · 2004-04-27 11:08 · Score: 1

What do you prefer? BMW?? Mercedes?? Please, both of these nameplates have evolved into uninteresting German versions of Toyota, complete with the same sick fetish for the SUV scourge. At least VW keeps it interesting, when was the last time BMW or MB developed an engine that was this innovative? 1001 HP from a 7L engine in a passenger car? That's a BMW wet dream, they can't even keep their F1 from blowing up. The Maybach, yeah, that's all the world needs another Bentley.

I for one am glad to see a car manufacturer other than Ferrari developing interesting automobiles. Hopefully this technology will trickle down into the VW's and Audis of the future.

--
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
Re:Automotive Vaporware by nacturation · 2004-04-27 11:17 · Score: 1

Interesting to note too that VW started out as the car maker for the "volk", ie the unwashed masses. Seems like they've lost their roots.

More interesting is Hitler's involvement with founding it. In case you doubt the source, here's another site. Possibly one of the very few good things to come from that bastard.

Apologies for obliquely invoking Godwin's Law.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by PHPhD2B · 2004-04-27 11:25 · Score: 1

Interesting how VW is buying the naming rights to famous names. They also have rights to use the Rolls Royce name. Still just VW inside.

No, that's not correct. BMW has the rights to the Rolls-Royce name, something VW found out AFTER they had bought the Rolls-Royce car manufacturer. (Check out http://www.iht.com/IHT/TB/98/tb072998.html) VW does own the rights to the
The latest Rolls-Royce is made by BMW and is powered by a BMW V12 bored up to 6.75 liters, the same volume the old RR V8's had.

--
--I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by PHPhD2B · 2004-04-27 11:28 · Score: 1

VW does own the rights to the Bentley name though. (Didn't see that unfinished sentence!)

--
--I am Sun Tzu of the Borg. Resistance is feudal.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:44 · Score: 0

Big deal. A developer in my office has a Honda that cranks out well over 400hp from a 1.6L engine and with a different camshaft will hit 500.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Keith+Russell · 2004-04-27 11:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, they got Bentley in the divorce. BMW now builds Rolls-Royce motor cars. VW is now comprised of Seat, Skoda, Volkswagen, Audi, Bentley, Lamborghini, and Bugatti, not to mention their plans to collaborate with Ferrari on future Maserati models.

So there must be a car for the proletariat in there somewhere. :-) Theoretically, that's the Seat and Skoda brands, as well as the VW Lupo and Polo. Unfortunately, out of all those cars, none are available in North America except the Polo, and they're only sold in Mexico. As long as they keep nudging the Golf and Jetta upscale, they'll drift farther away from their legacy. Maybe if they could find a way to import Skodas without driving up the price, they could get it back. From what I hear, the Czechs are building VW's best cars right now.

--
This sig intentionally left blank.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Xzzy · 2004-04-27 12:02 · Score: 5, Informative

Eh, this is a bit of a peeve of mine. Hitler did NOT design the beetle. While Hitler was instrumental in getting the Volkswagen into production, he in fact did not create the beetle as those links would claim.

Ferdinand Porche had been designing automobiles for some 10 years when WWI ended, and as Germany's economy collapsed he realized the need for a family type car would be developing. For the next 15 years he pushed the idea, but at the time car makers were more interested in high-dollar luxury vehicles. It wasn't until 1934 he actually got a prototype built, an aircooled flat four-powered vehicle that almost anyone would recognize as a beetle. He had been working on the plans for several years prior.

In 1933/1934 Hitler came into power and started vocalizing his plans for the autobahn and the Volksauto. When Porche's employeer exited the automobile industry in that period, Porche basically panicked because he did not want his pet project to die. He did the letter writing campaign, and eventually Hitler heard about it. Through 1934 Porche and Hitler met, and found they both had similar views about building a "people's car". In the course of several meetings they settled on the specifications of what the car would be capable of.

From there Hitler funded Porche's prototyping and research.

There was a lot of simultaneous development going on here, Hitler had read much of Henry Ford's success, and was quite a car enthusiast. Hitler's idea of the volkswagen was his own, as much as it was Porche's own.

The design and engineering, however, is almost exclusively Porche's (though there are some allegations he stole some of the body design from another designer, I don't rightly remember who that would be though).

Later on, after WWII, the US saw the value of Volkswagen to rebuilding Germany's shattered economy, and put significant effort into rebuilding the destroyed factories and getting cars built again. In some ways, the US was as instrumental in VW's success as anyone else was.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by geekd · 2004-04-27 12:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

complete with the same sick fetish for the SUV scourge.

I agree that SUV's are a plague on our roads, but you can't blame car makers for making what people want to buy. They are in business to make money, after all.

Exactly why so many people want SUVs is a mystery to me. But then, I don't have any kids.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by benzapp · 2004-04-27 12:37 · Score: 1

So true. The BMW SUV looks so ridiculous with that grill stamped on the front. It has the same sort of look as the golf carts with the BMW hood.

--
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Re:Automotive Vaporware by fireman+sam · 2004-04-27 13:09 · Score: 1

Have you ever seen a soccer mum (US: mom) get her young kids in and out of one of those SUV, especially the higher ones. Very funny, she almost needed a ladder, or a cherry picker.

--
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by fireman+sam · 2004-04-27 13:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Actually, the beetle (and the porche) got their unique shape, not from the insects, but from hail stones. Porche noted that all hail stones were smooth and aerodynamic, so he got a big block of ice and stuck it in a wind tunnel. The shape he ended up is the shape you would get if you cut two VW beeltes in half and joined the back halves together. The shape was then modified to accomodate the windscreen.

--
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Andy_R · 2004-04-27 13:16 · Score: 2, Informative

VW (or more accurately VAG - Volkswagen-Audi Group) don't own the Rolls Royce name, BMW owns it (along with Mini). VAG does have Bentley and Lamborghini though.

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Re:Automotive Vaporware by drinkypoo · 2004-04-27 13:29 · Score: 1

Having kids should make you NOT want a SUV. SUVs are more likely to roll over than the most useful family vehicle, the Minivan (vanagons and toyota vanagon-clones notwithstanding) and a whole lot less convenient and fuel-efficient.
People want SUVs because they think it makes them come off as a wimp (male or female, but especially males) to drive a minivan. Personally, I think it makes you a dumbshit to drive a SUV. It's not good at anything, not community, nor grocery getting, off roading, cruising, or for ferrying around children. The only exceptions to this rule are vehicles which existed before we called anything a "sport utility" vehicle, which is to say the suburban.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Andy_R · 2004-04-27 13:32 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not even new vapourware, it's just the (abandoned) W16 Bentley Hunadieres with a new badge and some turbos, which in turn is just the (abandoned) W16 Audi Rosemeyer with a different badge, which in turn is just the (abandoned) W12 Audi Avus with 1 extra cyl per head, which is just the (abandoned) Volkswagen W12 with a different badge, which is just an old (abandoned) Audi W8 concept car (the name escapes me for now) with 1 extra cyl per head, which is a rebadged (abandoned) Seat W8, and so on.

See the pattern?

If Piech hadn't gone, we'd be drooling over a succession of fake W24 volkswagen/bentley/audi/lamborghini/seat/skodas by now, but since he has gone, the bait and switching has stopped and people are actually expecting the last of the line to be built.

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 13:36 · Score: 0

(Kinda sounds like Rhapsody a bit, doesn't it?)
I assume you mean Apple's Rhapsody. That did ship after they dropped the development codename and called it Mac OS X...
Re:Automotive Vaporware by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 13:37 · Score: 0, Troll

The reason VW doesnt make SUVs in large numbers yet is because the MK4 golf and jetta already weigh 4000 lbs lol garbage scow.

If they were to make SUVs, they would probably 8000 lbs and have great dashboards but poor reliability and lackluster performance lol redundant in a VW.

VW probably doesnt have enough steel yet to go ahead with their SUV plan. They could probably subtitute lead, but that just wouldnt be in keeping with the fuhrers vision.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by istewart · 2004-04-27 13:53 · Score: 1

Actually, I believe civilian VW production was jumpstarted in 1946 by the British general in charge of the Wolfsburg occupation area. Can't remember a link with substantive info tho.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by nacturation · 2004-04-27 14:03 · Score: 1

Thanks for the clarification! I knew Hitler was somehow involved, but not much more. Google provided the rest. :)

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by LabRatty · 2004-04-27 14:28 · Score: 2, Informative

You obviously are watching a different F1 championship to the rest of the planet. BMW have, along with Toyota, the most powerful and reliable units in F1(excluding Schumacher's Ferrari, it just won't break). MB, now they ARE building crap at the moment, but that is as likely to be the McLaren chassis twisting the engine too much.

As for Ferrari building interesting cars, not likely. The don't need to, the have the name behind them and only need to sell 3000 cars a year, that's all they build.

The W engine doesn't need to trickle down to Audi, it started with them, as far back a 1991. That was with three banks of cylinders and in a VW as the current VV four banks since 1997.

VW have owned Audi since the 1960s. And as a side note Bentley too, that is why as soon as Audi pulled out of LeMans Bentley started winning, an engineer/designer swap over to the Bentley factory and a quick bit of rebadging. :)
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:39 · Score: 0

Arrrgh - so much right in the post but it was the English who ran the VW factory and got it back up and running. I read a book about the english major who had the job of running the factory - he did a good job. They even took a beetle back to the UK as Morris thought about making it there. They didn't like the car, so developed the Morris Minor which was a success at least for the UK (and indirectly lead to the Mini).
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Halfbaked+Plan · 2004-04-27 14:46 · Score: 1

There was a lot of simultaneous development going on here, Hitler had read much of Henry Ford's success, and was quite a car enthusiast.

Henry Ford had also read much of Hitler and was quite a Nazi enthusiast.

As an aside (somewhat) Ford and Fordisms were no minor theme in Huxley's book 'Brave New World.' Mass production of humans and the worship of "Ford's T" (which replaced the cross) were subtle but significant themes in the book.

--
resigned
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:50 · Score: 0

Your developer, would his car have a bunch of stickers and a fin that can almost make the car fly? Is the exhaust coffee-can size or larger? Is he asian?

Please, pictures! We love to laugh at riced out econocars.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:56 · Score: 0

There are questions about whether Porsche actually designed the VW bug. The VW bug has an unusually strong resemblance to the Tatra. VW likes to take credit for the design but maybe it should really go to the Czechs. http://www.tatra.demon.nl/cars-T87.htm

Of course there are other questions about whether the VW bug should be given credit to Porsche.

Someone claimed that Dr. Josef Ganz created the bug.

"After the war, Tatra had the cheek to demand royalty payments on their stolen "VW patents. This placed the masters of Wolfsburg in a quandary. To avoid paying many millions in undeserved royalties to Tatra, they had to abandon the Porsche myth and to re-discover Joe Ganz's contribution, and paraded him to the courts, which put an end tthe Tatra claims." http://www.schouwer-online.de/technik/bungartz.htm

People over romanticize the bug. What qualities do people endeer the bug to people? Is it the beefy engine and big ride or luxury? Maybe nostalgia for the antique and antiquated?
Re:Automotive Vaporware by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-04-27 15:00 · Score: 1

You can buy a W8 4-motion Passat from VW. Maybe VAG have got their W motors to a production ready state...

BTW, last I heard, Lamborghini was owned by an Indeonesion group.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by fatman22 · 2004-04-27 16:45 · Score: 1

I drive the 1800lb plastic minivan, the wife and kids I put in the 7000lb cast-iron-and-steel Suburban. They've been hit three times now and always walked away without a scratch. That's worth the TCO and 23mpg.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Insipid+Trunculance · 2004-04-27 16:57 · Score: 1

As an interesting aside ,Dr. Porshe did design the Porshe-tiger which was rated the best Tank at that time,better than the T-34.

In fact,Alan Clark in his book Barbarossa-the russo-german conflict wrote that NATO didnt have an equivalent Tank till its 18th year of existance.

Infact Dr Porshe's dream tank was a monstrous 190 ton tank that would have carried ,IIRC,a truly huge 175 bore gun.

--
Wanted : A Signature.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Pig+Hogger · 2004-04-27 17:11 · Score: 1

Interesting to note too that VW started out as the car maker for the "volk", ie the unwashed masses. Seems like they've lost their roots.
Their bean-counters have just realized that a "luxury" car costs half as much to build as a shitcan, yet will sell for more than 5 times the price.
This is why in North America, you only see high-end Mercedes while in Europe you'll see Mercedeses you'll mistake for a Yugo at first glance: they make far much more money on the luxury cars than on the cheap ones...
Re:Automotive Vaporware by my02wrxsti · 2004-04-27 17:26 · Score: 1

An interesting factoid about the early Beetle is that (even with what, about 30hp or less) it was one of the only cars of the day that could cruise indefinitely at 100km/h on the new Autobahns without overheating. Even the big Mercs of the day had difficulty doing this. An amazing car by any standard.
Richard.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by indigeek · 2004-04-27 19:05 · Score: 1

The design and engineering, however, is almost exclusively Porche's (though there are some allegations he stole some of the body design from another designer, I don't rightly remember who that would be though).
There is more to it than that. Skoda had a design for a car that looked like a beetle (with some similarities to the Citroen's bug car).They even displayed it at the Berlin motorshow before the war. The stroy goes that the Skoda guys were pretty friendly with hitler and gave him the blueprints of the car. When the war started, czechkoslovakia was invaded by germany. Hitler meanwhile passed on the blueprints which were used in making the beetle. The designer of the Skoda car, Hans Ledwinka, lost a lot of patents and fame. After the war he was a prisoner in the Russian prisons for years.
Skoda, in their museum at their hometown, still has a display of what the beetle would have looked like, if they made it.
So yes, Hitler has a lot to do with it.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by dunkelfalke · 2004-04-27 19:25 · Score: 1

wrong, sorry.

first, there were two tiger prototypes. one of porsche, one of henschel. hitler always favorized porsche, but the porsche tanks always had too many bugs.

second, tiger was already an old and bulky design with a problematic gasoline motor and transmission. tiger wasn't alltogether better than t-34 - you cannot compare both. tiger had a weight of 57 metric tonnes, twice (!!!) weight of t-34/76 (27 t). t-34 is more comarable with the pz-III, the most basic german tank (22 t). and pz-III hadn't any chance against t-34.

you can compare tiger with the russian heavy tank - is and is-2 (about 46 t) which were very dangerous for a tiger.

the best german tank of the second world war was the panther - a quite t-34 copy, but much bigger and heavier.

alltogether, tiger wasn't THAT good, short of its cannon. nato and ussr already had much better tanks in the last months of war (russian is-3 and us m26 pershing, also called tigertamer)

feel free to email me if you have further questions about tanks ;-)

--
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Andy_R · 2004-04-27 19:51 · Score: 1

last I heard, Lamborghini was owned by an Indeonesion group.

I'm guessing you heard before July 1998 then? That's when VAG's Audi division took over from the previous joint owners, the Malaysian holding company Mycom Setdco and the Indonesian V'Power Corporation. The new 'small' Lamborghini Gallardo V10 introduced last year shares some parts with the Audi range.

Currently, you can buy the W8 engine in the VW Passat, and the W12 in the Volkswagen Phaeton, but these are sold on smoothness, not power, and the cars are luxury barges not sports cars. The W16/18 engines are not production ready, even in non-turbo state, and even VAG now admit the 18 (3 banks of 6 cyls, so not really a "w") has been killed off.

--
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Sique · 2004-04-27 21:12 · Score: 1

Interesting how VW is buying the naming rights to famous names. They also have rights to use the Rolls Royce name. Still just VW inside.

No. They haven't. When VW bought the assets of Rolls-Royce Automotive, they had to give the Rolls-Royce brand to BMW. So all you can get from VW is the Bentley brand (beside the Lamborghini and Bugatti).

Volkswagen still has a very volkswagen like brand, and it is one of the most profitable in the group: Skoda. They use the VW wide platforms and just get it right: Highly usable and affordable. Sadly the Volkswagen brand itself gets more and more expensive with increasing quality problems. The same platform performs better in quality if you buy it from Skoda.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*
Re:Automotive Vaporware by meadowsp · 2004-04-27 21:15 · Score: 1

I wouldn't say it was that subtle really, "In the year of our ford" and all that.

Interesting link
Re:Automotive Vaporware by jez9999 · 2004-04-27 21:32 · Score: 1

Possibly one of the very few good things to come from that bastard.

Good things? The VW Beetle original is possibly the most hideous car I've ever seen, with the modern version not much better. Horrible loud engine, shaped like a beetle (appropriate), and painted in such eye-insulting colours you'd think they had a national survey to find out what people disliked the most.

--
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by anaplasmosis · 2004-04-27 21:48 · Score: 1

It's "Porsche", dammit.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by mgscheue · 2004-04-27 23:33 · Score: 1

BMW owns Rolls Royce these days and VW owns Bentley (and Lamborghini). It's more than naming rights though, in the case of Bugatti, that's effectively what it is.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by HBPiper · 2004-04-28 01:06 · Score: 1

That is correct, sir! Volkswagen bought the Rolls Royce factory and tooling in Crewe, but much to their chagrin, that did not include the rights to use the Rolls-Royce name on the vehicles, which BMW scoffed up and is now using. It did however include the rights to the Bentley name. So Volkswagen is building "true" Rolls Royces under the Bentley name, and BMW is building a car that is almost totally unrelated to a "true" Rolls under the Rolls-Royce name. And of course, as the former "performance" brand of Rolls-Royce, at least since the 1930's or 40's, Bentley's have always been rebadged Rolls=Royces to a certain extent.

--
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Dirk+Pitt · 2004-04-28 01:13 · Score: 1

It's not good at anything, not community, nor grocery getting, off roading, cruising, or for ferrying around children
Um, I do all the above with my LR Discovery and Defender 90. The Discovery, despite having some of the highest ground clearance around, is not at all tippy compared to some of the poorly built American equivalents I've driven. It's great for highway driving. It doesn't rust. Plenty of room in the back for trips to hardware store or the soccer field. My 5'1" wife has no problems climbing in with no running boards, as do the possy of 8 year old soccer players that usually are following her.
I have it offroad at least twice a month; I wouldn't want to be 2 days from a paved road in any other vehicle (short of a Land Cruiser, possibly a better made off roader than any Landie). The things simply go in any type of weather, any kind of road. I can't at all understand your statement 'it's not good at anything' particularly offroading, which the things were built for. Even the questionable 'Merican versions are truck frames, and built for abuse. I know plenty of people that have their Cherokees and Explorers off road. Now, the little unibody suv-like vehicles are a different story, but let's face it, they're not really SUVs.
And I've driven minivans. Even if most of them weren't pretty poorly made, I just don't find them comfortable. The ones I've driven do piss poor in the winter. They're akin to driving big plastic tubs around. Maybe Chrysler's resurgence of the muscle station wagon will inspire some interesting changes, but minvans are simply no joy to drive.
I do feel guilty about the 15mpg I get, and I do wish LR would export the diesels. But I'm not just the grocery-getter SUV driver, and you shouldn't assume everyone is. But I guess I'm just a dumbshit for thinking so. ;-)
Re:Automotive Vaporware by drinkypoo · 2004-04-28 01:37 · Score: 1

Yeah I was speaking in generalizations. Incidentally LR has been around since time as time and so it's pretty much exempt from my statement, as are the international scout, the chevy blazer (only the ones built on a full size platform though,) the toyota land cruiser, the dodge power wagon (though the new one looks stupid - the original was 4dr and much more functional) and probably one or two others I'm forgetting.
I can't stop talking about my brother's Chevy Astro EXT AWD. It's got a (poorly) fuel injected V6 and full time 4WD, aka AWD. It gets decent mileage, and even with its lack of ground clearance ends up going places (stock) 4WD trucks can't go. It's roomy, and if you put some firmer suspension components under it (or maybe his are just old and busted) it might even drive ok. It's not actually bad until you get onto the curvier roads, although SUVs don't generally shine there, until you get into the Porsche and BMW types... And don't even get me started on those POSes.
If you're looking for a power station wagon, I think Subaru might have something that fits the bill :) But they're pretty small. Volvo, actually, has some nice AWD Turbo sta-wags.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Automotive Vaporware by nacturation · 2004-04-28 01:39 · Score: 1

I'm not crazy about the iPod mini colors either, but they seem to be wildly popular. But I guess the beetle was good for reasons other than pleasing you or I. :)

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by asoap · 2004-04-28 01:59 · Score: 1

Also in Grand Prix racing (formula 1), before WW2 the German Government was funding the German Auto Union. Where Ferdinand Porche was designing the grand prix cars.
This really pissed off the other car manufacturer's who then proceeded to get an ass kicking at almost every single race.
Before the war started, at the race in Nurgburing Germany (I hope I spelt that right), the Nazi regime was out in full force with Bomber's doing a fly by before the race, and Swastikas painted on the German Auto Union cars (Imagine a Swastika on a Porsche). The event was a celebration of Nazi strength. The race was more of technicality that they had to get through, then an actual race. The German's were so sure of a win, that they already had a speech prepared to congratulate the German team.
Well this was one of those times where a driver for Ferarri (at that time Enzo Ferrari ran Alfa Romeo's racing team) pulled horse shoes out of his ass and claimed a miracle victory against opponents driving far better race cars then theirs.
-asoap

--
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
Re:Automotive Vaporware by morgue-ann · 2004-04-28 02:44 · Score: 1

as soon as Audi pulled out of LeMans Bentley started winning, an engineer/designer swap over to the Bentley factory and a quick bit of rebadging. :)

It's a bit more than a rebadging. The Audi R8s are open cockpit LMPs & the Bentley is a closed-cockpit GTP.

The prototype '00 car, the one that never raced, did benefit from the R8C experience, but only in as much as the early car showed us what not to do! [....]
There was not a great deal of carry over of design staff between R8C and subsequent Bentley projects.
Re:Automotive Vaporware by b0bby · 2004-04-28 02:57 · Score: 1

If you had kids, you'd want a minivan anyway, unless you cared about your image...
Re:Automotive Vaporware by drew · 2004-04-28 03:31 · Score: 1

People want SUVs because they think it makes them come off as a wimp (male or female, but especially males) to drive a minivan. Personally, I think it makes you a dumbshit to drive a SUV. It's not good at anything, not community, nor grocery getting, off roading, cruising, or for ferrying around children. The only exceptions to this rule are vehicles which existed before we called anything a "sport utility" vehicle, which is to say the suburban.

i agree with your point, but i think that the original generation of vehicles labeled as "sport utility" actually lived up to their name. e.g. the jeep cherokee, older ford explorers, chevy blazer, etc.

my parents have owned a jeep or explorer for about 12 years now. at this point, it's mostly because it's what my mom is comfortable driving, but before my brother and i went away to college, it actually served a purpose. my family always drove on vacations, and we tended to do a lot of camping in the summer and skiing in the winter. a family car just isn't practical for driving around four (essentially) full grown people for extended (i.e. one week) periods of time, especially when you take in to consideration the amount of gear you need for the trips we would go on. we tried renting a minivan once or twice before we got the first jeep but they just didn't work out too well. before that we owned a full size van as a third vehicle which we only used when we were on vacation. since my mom only drives about a mile or so to work, using an SUV as a daily use vehicle was much more practical than having a larger, dedicated vehicle just for traveling.

anyway, this is bordering on an OT rant now, but i know so many people who make blanket complaints about SUV's and it's started to drive me crazy.

back to the original point though- there are certain vehicles in the "SUV" category that drive me crazy. the primary one being H2. i live in chicago, the second largest city in the country, and i see about 2-3 of these a day. even downtown! i'm pretty sure that the H2 is just some sort of penis extension for rich guys who got made fun of too much when they were younger. the other ones that drive me crazy are the 'luxury' SUV's- Porche, BMW, Infinity (and the Murano since its essentially the same thing). they're just station wagons for people who think they're too cool to drive a station wagon (they even look like station wagons, to me at least)

--
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Re:Automotive Vaporware by drinkypoo · 2004-04-28 07:11 · Score: 1

The H2 is a slightly built up Chevy Tahoe. It's a piece of crap but I doubt it's much less efficient than the tahoe is - the tahoe is bad enough though.
I think the older explorer is a piece of crap. It is known to disintegrate unexpectedly :P The NEW explorer is probably still crap, but at least it has a double wishbone independent rear suspension. Finally, someone gets it! When you need handling, you need IRS.
There is some merit to the older Jeeps being useful. (I left out the Wagoneer from classic SUVs which didn't suck, I certainly should have mentioned that one.)
If you are one of the very few people who has a trail for a driveway or who lives someplace where the snow is serious (certainly there's more of the latter than the former) then owning an SUV is justified. For everything else, there's a better car.
Thanks for listening, choir! :)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Moofie · 2004-04-28 11:07 · Score: 1

So which is it? Is it "just" a VW, therefore still a "volks" wagen, or does it have the technical chops to be compared with other world-class marques, and therefore have lost their roots?

You're arguing both sides.

VWs are well-engineered, well-designed, and affordable. Audis are even more well designed, equally well engineered, and reasonably priced for their market. Rolls and Bentley seem to be doing just fine under VW's direction, and everybody seems to agree that they are superb automobiles. Phaeton was a very pretty car, and it will be interesting to see how it fares against other mid- to high-end luxury cars.

So what's wrong with Volkswagen, exactly? Just because it's the same name as a Beetle, doesn't mean the cars haven't moved along technologically.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Moofie · 2004-04-28 11:14 · Score: 1

Uh huh. What happened to the people in the other vehicles when they encountered your high-bumpered "safe" vehicle?

Suburbans are thrice as likely to kill people in the other vehicle. The fiction that they don't need to be safe, because they're trucks, is a criminal negligence on the part of Chevy and their pet legislators. (Same goes for the larger Fords and Dodges.)

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Halfbaked+Plan · 2004-04-28 14:40 · Score: 1

Agreed. But most High School instuctors try to reduce Huxley's work into 'test tube babies' and in the process eviscerate all the other themes in that complex and marvelous novel.

It's almost like they know they're doing it.

--
resigned
Re:Automotive Vaporware by Dirk+Pitt · 2004-04-29 04:32 · Score: 1

Yah, I would dearly love to get a WRX STi, but the wife thinks they all look like rice burners :-(.
I think the Porsche/BMW types have their place, but they're certainly not SUVs, as you imply. I got an Infiniti FX45 as a rental while the Landies were in the shop recently, and it was a sweet ride, but again more like a powerful station wagon than an offroad vehicle.
The Audi S4 Avante is a superlative wagon, btw. Puts sports coupes at twice the price to shame in road tests.
BTW -- if you hadn't heard, Porsche's taking the Cayenne powerplant and introducing a new 928, so that car wasn't a complete waste. ;-)

W-16? by CptKron · 2004-04-27 10:20 · Score: 5, Funny

A W-16 engine that can produce 1,001 horsepower

Every true rice boy knows anything more than four cylinders and a coffee can muffler is a waste.

Re:W-16? by Waffle+Iron · 2004-04-27 10:56 · Score: 1

anything more than four cylinders and a coffee can muffler is a waste.
Actually, I saw a documentary on dragsters a while back. They briefly covered a group of people who were trying to create a new class of riceboy-inspired nitro fueled funny cars that use 4-cylinder engines instead of V-8s. Unless I'm mistaken, even half of a modern dragster engine would have well over the 1000 HP of that W-16. Of course, the dragsters would have no muffler of any kind.
Re:W-16? by clbyjack81 · 2004-04-27 12:19 · Score: 1

Unless I'm mistaken, even half of a modern dragster engine would have well over the 1000 HP of that W-16
You are not mistaken...the issue is, as I have mentioned in an earlier post (might have been after yours, though) is reliability. Dragster engines have a lifespan between rebuilds of just a few seconds. That's right, they are run once, then rebuilt. That is the cost of tremendous horsepower out of small engines. The trick in supercars is creating 100k+ mile engines that still put out 500+ bhp.

--
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
Re:W-16? by Grishnakh · 2004-04-27 13:03 · Score: 1

It also helps that dragsters (at least Top Fuel ones) run on nitromethane fuel.
Re:W-16? by drinkypoo · 2004-04-27 13:34 · Score: 1

There are plenty of "ricers" with V6 and straight six engines. Supras tend to have a straight six (first a 2.5 liter, then later, a 3.0) and 300ZX cars (which are cheap enough to rice these days) have a V6, as does the Hyundai Tiburon, the latest rice-craze-mobile (cheap power.)
As for the power of rice, Jun has a Nissan Skyline (stock engine: RB26DETT, a 2.6 liter DOHC TT straight six putting out about 300hp) which develops 1,600 horsepower on gasoline. I don't know if it has nitrous, because I can't read japanese. They also have a Nissan Silvia (here, it's the 240SX) whose 2.0 liter I4 is putting out about 830HP. I don't know how long these motors last them, though.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:W-16? by dmaxwell · 2004-04-27 14:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Umm, Supras and 300ZXs are what riceboys lust after . Since they can't have it, they settle for chrome rims and a big spoiler on Mom's old Prelude. Being a riceboy is all about trying to give wimpy econoboxes the appearance of performance. A Supra owner doesn't need to dork with his car to let everyone know it's bad. A performance enthusiast who pimps his Supra is still a performance enthusiast. A riceboy is something else altogether.
Re:W-16? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:57 · Score: 0

You don't understand "rice" - it doesn't just mean Japanese. There are Japanese cars that are powerful, stylish and superior to most other rides, they're not "rice". "Rice" is what happens when some clueless young fool slaps stuff on top of a piece of shit that will never be any of the above but in his deluded little mind he's making it better.
Re:W-16? by drinkypoo · 2004-04-27 15:16 · Score: 1

being a rice boy is prioritizing appearance over function. "pimping" is one thing, and ricing is another. putting decals representing all the parts on the car when you are not being sponsored is rice whether it's on a honda quaalude or a nissan skyline.
anyway there are straight six supras which do not have a 3 liter twin turbo straight six, but were offered with a 2.5 liter straight six, with or without a turbo. so not all supras are the rice dream. similarly there are SOHC (opt. with single turbo) and DOHC (opt. with TT) 300ZXs. You can get a 300ZX TT in decent shape for less than eight thousand dollars, so they are within the reach of many rice boys. the supra TT, however, still commands the bigga figga.
anyway I've seen all kinds of cars riced out, including domestic shitboxes. it's not just the japanese econobox that gets the rice treatment. similarly I've seen japanese cars which were done up chicano style with the stupid pushed-out donut tires and dingle balls in the windows.
I have seen many a riced out 300ZX with a goofy nonfunctional body kit, and a couple of really goofy looking supras. so it's not like they've never been riced out.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:W-16? by stanmann · 2004-04-28 03:24 · Score: 1

helps them blow up or run fast??

or both?

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:W-16? by Firethorn · 2004-04-28 06:29 · Score: 1

I think the average is actually ~2-3 runs per rebuild. So that's the number they do at an event. Run time is still measured in seconds though. The engines don't have anywhere near enough cooling for sustained operations.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:W-16? by thadeusg · 2004-04-28 06:42 · Score: 1

I'd doubt the Skyline is being juiced. (They have super gas over there. I doubt it'd run more than 1000HP on ours [US] That block can hold a shit load of boost. ) I'd imagine that block will last a while, being a cast iron inline 6. Of course, how long an engine lasts depends a lot more on how it's being used as opposed to how much horsepower (A real tuner gets out, mind you, not some idiot with a 150 shot of NOS) they're making.

I also wanted to nitpick:

While the 240SX (the S13 and S14) body and chassis IS the Silvia, the similarities end there. The Silvia has the SR20DET, and the 240SX has a KA series. KA24E and KA24DE depending on year.

Only the Z32 had a V6 (VG series), all the older Z's have inlines.
Re:W-16? by greatmazinger · 2004-04-28 06:49 · Score: 1

Every true rice boy knows anything more than four cylinders and a coffee can muffler is a waste.

That's just plain racist. And the webpage you linked to is racist.
Re:W-16? by drinkypoo · 2004-04-28 07:07 · Score: 1

I drive a 1989 240SX, I know about the Silvia/240SX/180SX/200SX separation. I also know that by our numbers, Japanese high-grade fuel is about 102 octane.
The Z31 has the VG30E(T), which is a 3 liter SOHC V6. I used to own an '84 300ZX Turbo. The Z32 has the VG30DE(TT), the 3 liter DOHC V6. All earlier Zs have a straight six; 2.4, 2.6, or 2.8 liters, AFAIK each has only 2 valves per cylinder, but that might just be the 2.8 liter. So, you were nearly right.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:W-16? by thadeusg · 2004-04-28 07:17 · Score: 1

Ok, so I'm a bit off on my Nissan nomenclature..the Z32/Z31 are the same chassis ? the 90/91-96 models, right? Or is the Z31 the 86-ish to 90-ish one?

I hope you haven't gone the way of the vastly over-done Silvia conversion on your 240.

(I myself am debating on tossing an SR20 into my '91 Sentra beater when the GA finally craps out.)
Re:W-16? by drinkypoo · 2004-04-28 07:24 · Score: 1

The Z31 runs from 1984 to 1989, and the Z32 from 1990 to 1996.
I am going to do the "vastly over-done" Silvia front end conversion on my fastback, because A> I like the way the sil-eighty looks and B> I despise pop-up headlights. I currently have done a motorless "sleepy" headlight modification, but that limits the amount of light I put on the road, even though 60%+ of the light that hits the road comes from the top of the lamp. (I have Hella H4 conversion headlights, too.) Pop-up headlights are a bad idea, plain and simple. They increase the complexity of the car to no useful end.
The SR20DET is a great engine. The GA is pretty nice, but the SR is nicer. IMO, however, the CA18DET is THE dope motor, unless you want to push more than 300hp - unnecessary for me, but some people want to do it.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:W-16? by thadeusg · 2004-04-28 07:39 · Score: 1

Well as long as you have a reason behind doing it.

I think I'll settle on the SR, seeing as how my Sentra is a 4-door, and I intend on it being an uber-sleeper in an area dominated by domestics, so I'll need all the low-end torque and displacement I can get my hands on.

Small engine, fast cars but what about airplanes? by StateOfTheUnion · 2004-04-27 10:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Small engines fast cars. . . what about airplanes? Reminds me of a conversation with a friend that just bought the Mazda RX-8 (Wenkel Rotary Engine) . . . do cars push the envelope on internal combustion engines? or do airplanes?

60 years ago when internal combustion propellor planes were the standard, I'm guessing that the prop plane defined the hi-tech, high powered, low weight internal combustion engine. Anyone know if that's still true?

The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . .

How... by ottffssent · 2004-04-27 10:21 · Score: 5, Funny

How do you keep a passenger car on the road at 250+ MPH?

Well, here in the USA, we do use very heavy passengers:)

--
High-speed Road Trip (18.000KPH)

Not the most expensive by Tyrdium · 2004-04-27 10:21 · Score: 4, Informative

How would you define the most amazing production car in the world? Would it be: * The car with the most horsepower? * The car with the fastest top speed and acceleration? * The most expensive car?

Sorry, but according to the Guinness Book of World Records, the most valuable car in the world is the Bugatti Type 41 Royale, at $15 million. It's also not the fastest overall, since it's beaten by racecars and the like.

Re:Not the most expensive by Malk-a-mite · 2004-04-27 10:25 · Score: 1

"since it's beaten by racecars and the like"

Could that be the reason why they said "most amazing production car"
Re:Not the most expensive by avalys · 2004-04-27 10:27 · Score: 1

The Bugatti Veyron is the most expensive new car.

--
This space intentionally left blank.
Re:Not the most expensive by kfg · 2004-04-27 10:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're getting into issues here regarding "expensive" vs. "valuable."

An expensive car is one that you need a lot of money to order. A valuable car is one that even if you have the money you probably can't get because there aren't any on the market.

Kinda like the Hope Diamond. You just can't have it. Period. It's not for sale.

When cars like this do go on the market they are typically sold at auction, which is where Guiness gets that price for the Royale (which is a particular Royale, not the Royale in general. Every Royale was a custom one off. They vary in value.).

This does not actually make it the most valuable car in the world though. Just the one the highest auction price has been payed for.

It is guessed that Ralph Lauren's Type 57SC Atlantic is much more valuable, but it hasn't been on the market for 20 years, so it has no known "price."

It's the Hope Diamond of automobiles.

Of course the Thrust SSC is the fastest car in the world, and no, you can't buy that either.

KFG
Re:Not the most expensive by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:50 · Score: 0

How would you define the most amazing production car in the world?

The Prius

The car with the most horsepower?

Yeah, I'll need that next time I watch "The Fast & Furious" or whatever that lame flick is called.

The car with the fastest top speed and acceleration?

Does it come with a private drag strip?

The most expensive car?

If it's expensive it must be good.. hey anyone wanna buy a Ford Granada for $16M ?
Re:Not the most expensive by tricknology · 2004-04-27 13:00 · Score: 1

...the most amazing production car in the world...

--
I never been so broke that I couldn't leave town.
Re:Not the most expensive by Hydrogenoid · 2004-04-27 13:23 · Score: 1

I doubt the Thrust SSC is a very good example of production car... ;) (not that the Royale is that much better in that regard)

Most horsepower? by azav · 2004-04-27 10:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Carmack's Testarossa had 1198 bhp and they had trouble getting it dialed in and over 170. Pretty tractable though the wheels DID spin in 3rd gear when the turbos came up to speed at 85 mph.

Not sure if the Bugatti really does have "the most horsepower." Maybe most for a production car.

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...

Re:Most horsepower? by kfg · 2004-04-27 10:41 · Score: 1

Maybe most for a production car.

Yes, I believe that was the actual intended meaning. I believe the most powerful car ever registered for the road was one a Brit Blue Blood, with money and ennui, had made up in the 70s.

He mounted four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines in a single chassis.

R&T put it on their cover once upon a time.

KFG
Re:Most horsepower? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:43 · Score: 0

who.the.fuck.cares.about.carmack's.testarossa and obviously they mean most for a production car. that's the whole point. you, sir, etc.
Re:Most horsepower? by wankledot · 2004-04-27 10:56 · Score: 1

the 170MPH limit was not likely a problem with horsepower. Top speed is only limited by three things: drag, power, and gearing. 1200HP is enough power to push anything over 170 no matter how bad the drag is (and I'm sure it was pretty decent for the 'rossa., and way more than enough to spin the wheels in 3rd. There are 944 turbos pushing less than half that HP that have a problem keeping rubber on the road, due to huge ammounts of torque. (I use that example because it's a car I know well enough), 170MPH was most likely a problem with gearing or just lack of balls.
As far as Max HP, There are plenty of street cars with 1000HP, but none that came from the factory like that. Although "factory" in this case is a bit of a misnomer.

--
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
Re:Most horsepower? by black+mariah · 2004-04-27 11:01 · Score: 1

Maybe most for a production car.
Obviously. Race cars have had far more than 1,000 HP for a while now. NHRA Pro Stock cars have somewhere around 12-1400 HP, on a 500 cubic inch, naturally aspirated motor. Top Fuel dragsters have never been successfully dyno'd. They have a hard time staying together for the 4.5 seconds it takes them to get from 0-330 MPH, so putting them on a dynamometer is a dicey proposition. Estimates put the HP ratings for the supercharged, nitromethane-fueled engines at about 7-10,000. Yeah, 10,000 HP.

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Re:Most horsepower? by nacturation · 2004-04-27 11:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

This is similar to the ultimate pimp daddy car, the Cadillac Sixteen. Engine is also 1000hp.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:Most horsepower? by jmpvm · 2004-04-27 11:39 · Score: 1

Maybe most for a production car.
I'm sure they meant 'from the factory'.

There are quite a few cars out there putting out this sort of horsepower. The commons ones would be vipers, corvettes and toyota supras.
Re:Most horsepower? by RallyNick · 2004-04-27 11:52 · Score: 1

professional dragsters put out more like 4000 (four thousand) horsepower through crazy turbochargers and special fuels. the engine can take it for only one race at a time then it needs rebuilding. they get to the end of their 1/4 mile race in something like 4-5 seconds, and running at full power any longer would immediately melt the engine internals.
so yeah, definitely most horsepower from a factory car for the bugatti.
Re:Most horsepower? by Excen · 2004-04-27 14:29 · Score: 1

The Nismo Skyline can, if the chip is properly reprogrammed, produce over 1000 horsepower, IIRC.

I don't know how to link to a pic, but the Skyline was the silver and blue car in the beginning of that monstrosity 2 Fast 2 Furious.

--
"No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
Re:Most horsepower? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:59 · Score: 0

Yes, there are many cars out there with above this much horsepower. At a car show I saw a guy with a classic camero who had tested his engine and had over 1300 horses. The engine was so loud, it was insane.
Re:Most horsepower? by LuxFX · 2004-04-27 15:27 · Score: 1

Not sure if the Bugatti really does have "the most horsepower." Maybe most for a production car

Yup, that's what they're aiming for at least. Things like the Lamborghini Murcielago has somewhere in the 650s I think, to give you some comparison. But I do remember that an after-market shop was selling 'production' Vipers with a twin-turbo slapped in it. They called the Viper Venom TT, and it shipped with 800hp. Not too shabby. Apparently the 0-60 was in the 2-second range. Yikes!

--
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
Re:Most horsepower? by azav · 2004-04-28 05:58 · Score: 1

It spun the wheels at 85 in third because the application of horsepower beat the traction control for a split second.

Spooky.

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...

You there! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:22 · Score: 1, Funny

Fill it up with petroleum distillate, and revulcanize my tires! Posthaste!

0-60 in 3 seconds! by Bob+Vila's+Hammer · 2004-04-27 10:24 · Score: 1

It would be incredibly easy to kill someone within 3 seconds with this car. Scary. I hope it has good visibility.

--

--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams

Re:0-60 in 3 seconds! by adamofgreyskull · 2004-04-27 10:51 · Score: 1

If you can get to 30mph in 3 seconds you could kill someone. Thank goodness car pedals are analogue I guess. :o)
Re:0-60 in 3 seconds! by the+eric+conspiracy · 2004-04-27 11:55 · Score: 1

Thank goodness car pedals are analogue

I used to hang out with this guy who thought they were binary. He would constantly pump the gas or brake pedal depending on the circumstances. Annoying as hell.
Re:0-60 in 3 seconds! by Wolfier · 2004-04-27 14:49 · Score: 1

It's the driver, not the car. A driver who kills someone in 3 seconds is going to do it anyway even in a Geo Metro.
Re:0-60 in 3 seconds! by Bob+Vila's+Hammer · 2004-04-27 15:48 · Score: 1

Of course its the driver. But you can put the same driver we're talking about in a Geo Metro and in a Veyron. The potential to do damage more quickly is with the Veyron, its capabilities are tremendous. You could accelerate and within 2 seconds have enough speed to destroy someone or something.
In a Geo metro, there are many more limitations to its capabilities - they aren't as extreme. You could accelerate, but not that quickly. The Veyron weighs 4300 lbs, a metro probably weighs a third of that.

The Veyron is much more dangerous considering its specs match that of what they call Champ Cars, which are extremely fast race cars. Race cars. Having this thing on the street is like having a shark in your swimming pool.

--

--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams
Re:0-60 in 3 seconds! by Wolfier · 2004-04-27 18:08 · Score: 1

The Veyron is NOT a race car. Far from it. Real race cars do not have all the technical bells and whistles that make mere mortals handle the power easier.

If these technologies were not in, even 300 horsepowers is difficult to handle - you'll see a lot of Corvettes, Porsches, M3s, AMGs, STIs, SC430s, Devilles, etc. crash at every corner of the streets.

I fully expect that if Bugatti sells the car as a street car, then, like every other street cars, changes will be made to make the power easy to handle (relatively).

And, don't worry about a Veyron wreaking havoc. Its high cost serves the purpose of reducing the odds of you being hit by it to almost 0.

In fact, I suspect that the chance of you SEEING a Veyron on the road is less than that of you being KILLED by some SUV/Civic/Corolla/Cavaliers etc.

Re:Further questions... by kfg · 2004-04-27 10:25 · Score: 2, Funny

You don't. That's part of the beauty of it.

KFG

It's kinda cool though... by ScottGant · 2004-04-27 10:25 · Score: 1

I like the fact that instead of it being a V-8 engine it's a W-16 engine.

It would be interesting putting this engine into a truck or some working vehicle...but there are probably more efficient engines out there, like a diesel?

Interesting read though.

--

"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.

Re:It's kinda cool though... by nelsonal · 2004-04-27 10:33 · Score: 1

VW is going to put a W12 in their Phateon or however it's supposed to be spelled sometime this year or next. Not quite as big, I think the W12 is in the 400 hp range, but the price should be much more reasonable. I don't know if any Audi models will get a W engine. If I were buying a super car I'd get the new Esprit.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Re:It's kinda cool though... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 12:22 · Score: 0

The Audi's top model A8 already comes with a W12 engine. At least in Germany.

So obvious... by Phexro · 2004-04-27 10:26 · Score: 4, Funny

"How do you keep a passenger car on the road at 250+ MPH?"

The answer for most people is: you don't.

Re:So obvious... by SethJohnson · 2004-04-27 10:40 · Score: 1

Wrecked Exotics is a fun site.

I wrote the webmaster, however, asking why 'H2 Hummer' is a category. If that fits the definition of exotic, then they should also add a volkswagon section.

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Re:So obvious... by Phexro · 2004-04-27 10:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, though their pictures are pretty small. Some of the crash photos in a.b.p.grotesque are pretty decent, though.
Re:So obvious... by timeOday · 2004-04-27 13:18 · Score: 1

Good link, check out this one. Hummer ought to put that in their ads, somehow I think this is really the appeal after all.
Re:So obvious... by blincoln · 2004-04-27 13:51 · Score: 1

Good link, check out this one [wreckedexotics.com]. Hummer ought to put that in their ads, somehow I think this is really the appeal after all.

Actually, I doubt it is.

That Hummer is in relatively good shape because the collision was obviously at a low enough speed that it never made it all the way over the other car.

When I was at university, I saw what happens when an SUV does that same head-on collision at high speed - it uses the other car as a ramp, and does a sideways roll onto its roof, like you see stunt cars do in films.

The SUV I saw use a BMW James Bond car as a ramp ended up with its roof crushed in completely and the driver dead. The driver of the BMW walked away.

--
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
Re:So obvious... by timeOday · 2004-04-27 15:17 · Score: 1

Ah, well I didn't mean they're actually safer, just that the idea of driving over a Civic would appeal to them.

Whoah by Apreche · 2004-04-27 10:26 · Score: 1

If I would have won the lottery yesterday you would see a Ferrari, or maybe a Ford GT in my driveway. Maybe not anymore, holy shit.

--
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!

Re:Whoah by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

If I were to win the lottery, I'd never buy this car. You'd see a Porsche Carrera GT or Ferrari Enzo in my driveway, not this Volkswagen piece of shit.

The car is heavier than a Mercedes-Benz sedan, and uglier than Courtney Love. The 250 mph top speed is only a pipe dream: VW has had so many aerodynamic and mechanical problems with this car that they've had to delay its release for three years, and it still hasn't reached anything over 230 mph on a test track. 200 pounds of downforce at the rear (and less in the front) is practically nothing. The car handles so badly that the factory test driver who took it for a parade lap at some event for antique Bugattis event managed to spin out exiting a corner and almost wrecked it against the outside wall.
Re:Whoah by flewp · 2004-04-27 10:39 · Score: 1

If I was worth over 10 million dollars my car of choice would be an Enzo Ferrari over all other cars. As close to Formula One as you can get on a street legal car. I'd also buy a "normal" Ferrari, as in something around the 150,000-250,000 dollar mark. Also a nice Mercedes or BMW or something for daily driving, and probably a custom WRX STi or something as well.

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Re:Whoah by Johnathon_Dough · 2004-04-27 11:37 · Score: 1

Except you can't just go out and buy an Enzo, you have to be approved, even to buy one used. Approval usually consists of having owned a couple other Ferrari's before, and not just a GT or Testarossa, you have to have owned one of the really fancy ones. Then you have to get approved by Ferrari in some obscure way to be allowed to purchase one.

--
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
Re:Whoah by platipusrc · 2004-04-27 11:39 · Score: 1

I think you should go for the Mercedes SL600 and the Chrysler ME Four-Twelve.

SL600 is like 3.4 secs to 60 in a nice (cheap at this level, and it would be your 'normal' car) convertible.

ME Four-Twelve is ~2.9 secs to 60 (quicker than the car in the article, and it would slap the enzo around)

--
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
Re:Whoah by flewp · 2004-04-28 10:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, requirement is either an F40 or an F50 or both I believe.

I'm sure for the right price though, you could buy one second hand.

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Re:Whoah by Johnathon_Dough · 2004-04-28 11:39 · Score: 1

I'm sure for the right price though, you could buy one second hand.
I am not sure, I remember reading about some guy that bought it used, and he had to go through the same approval process. I would guess that the current owners feel the same way as Ferrari does, and have no problem whith making someone jump through the same hoops. When you are up in that range of cars, the amount of money is not so much the issue anymore, as what the perceived value is. The Enzo has one hell of a perceived value, above and beyond the dollar amount due to it's scaricity and the rigors of even owning one.

--
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
Re:Whoah by flewp · 2004-04-28 14:03 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm sure most owners are just as "cautious" about selling their Enzo to a good home. Or maybe a contract exists that says in order to own one, if you plan on selling it you have to sell it to an approved party. No idea really. I'm sure if there is no such legal hoops to jump through, there's someone out there who would sell you one to make some money.

What's the going rate on an Enzo anyway? I thought I remember hearing one being sold for roughly 2 million dollars, but I'm not sure. I know the base price is either $650,000 or $675,000 or thereabouts. I also read somewhere that an engine replacement under warranty is in the ballpark of $250,000. An oil change is somewhere around $7,500 according to the same article, but that seems a bit inflated, but still wouldn't suprise me.

--
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Re:Whoah by Johnathon_Dough · 2004-04-28 14:42 · Score: 1

I remember the 2 million number as well, not sure about the other stuff though...whatever it is I won't be buying one any time in the near future that's for sure.

--
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.

Did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:26 · Score: 0

Did I miss something? I remember Bugatti going out of business in 97. Did I dream this. I will have to dig out my old car magazines now.

Re:Did I miss something? by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-04-27 10:48 · Score: 1

It would seem VW bought the naming rights at the fire sale.

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Re:Did I miss something? by paule9984673 · 2004-04-27 10:53 · Score: 1

VWAG (Volkswagen, the company that once produced the VW "Bug") bought the name rights after the Bugatti revival went bankrupt.
The company that folded in 1997 didn't have anything to do with the original Bugatti (save for the name) either.

How do you keep a passenger car on the road? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:26 · Score: 0

How do you keep a passenger car on the road at 250+ MPH?

I'd like to think its some side effect of having an incredibly small penis.

Shop or compare prices by Rob+Parkhill · 2004-04-27 10:26 · Score: 4, Funny

I like how the HowStuffWorks article has a "Shop or Compare Prices" link at the very end.

It doesn't come up with too many matches, though.

--
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin

Hmm... by Dozix007 · 2004-04-27 10:27 · Score: 1

Better in what way ? I personally enjoy getting more than 3MPG (just me). I like the Civic Hybrid and Prius personally.

Re:Hmm... by Johnathon_Dough · 2004-04-27 11:40 · Score: 1

Surprisingly, the gas-hybred models were rated up there with SUV's for least customer satisfaction when it came to fuel efficiency. Mostly this had to do with the fact that people's real world experiences were much less than stated. As an example. You live in a hilly town? Expect the gas engine to kick in when ever you are trying to get to the top of the hill, and it is not particularly offset by the following down hill.
Don't get the wrong idea, they get great mileage compared to most cars, just not as good as people expect.

--
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.

Fastest car? Hardly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:27 · Score: 0

Saw a '68 Camaro that did 188 in 6.8 seconds. It might not have the top speed of this thing, but it would blow it out of the water from the line.

Go fast cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Get a motorcycle.

Most of the 1000cc sportbikes on the market today will do a nice 140+ mph quarter mile, top out at 180+ mph, and corner better than anything short of an indy car for around $10k.

Or, if insist on stupidly ridiculous 250 mph speeds, you could still get one of these and save three quarters of a million dollars.

Re:Go fast cheap by CitznFish · 2004-04-27 10:46 · Score: 1

show me 1 production sportbike that can hit 180mph. It's just not in the realm of possibility.

--
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
Re:Go fast cheap by The+Other+White+Boy · 2004-04-27 10:49 · Score: 1

this month's maxim magazine features three which can. i dont have it with me as i'm at work, but one of them was the new Honda CBR1000RR. the others were a suzuki and a kawasaki but the model numbers are lost on me at the moment. website might have em.

its well withint he realm of possibility, its just nowhere near the realm of good sense. i dont even like putting my bike near 100. =)
Re:Go fast cheap by CitznFish · 2004-04-27 10:54 · Score: 1

180MPH, not on this planet. Wind resistence alone will keep a bike under that speed.

--
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'
Re:Go fast cheap by adamgeek · 2004-04-27 10:54 · Score: 1

production sportbike? or production 1000cc sportbike? if the question is the former, both the busa and the zx12 will do it, not to mention more rare bikes that may not be classified as production numbered. in the "common 1000cc" category, the gix and r1 will both rub pretty close to 180 after correction.. maybe low 170's, i'd guess, which will read closer to 185-190 on the speedo. the 98-01 r1's will do 187 indicated, the 02-03 perhaps a tad more, and the 04 should do even better given the ram air, etc. now, how that indicated number corrects out is somewhat subjective.. imo 185 on most 1kcc bikes is around 170 corrected. drop a few teeth in back, add a few mods, most any 1000cc 4cyl on the market will do 180. however.. verrrrrrrry few people have any business breaking 100mph on a bike. i've seen a lot of people come and go, in my time of riding, and most of the ones who have gone, had no reason for being on a bike to begin with. stick to wrecking cages, people, bikes accellerate the natural selection curve a bit too quickly.
Re:Go fast cheap by FatHogByTheAss · 2004-04-27 10:55 · Score: 1

Here's a couple:

http://www.suzukicycles.com/Products/GSX1300RZK4 /

http://www.suzukicycles.com/Products/GSXR1000ZK4 /

Perhaps your realm of possibility doens't extend to the Daytona 200, which is run every year. This year, Matt Mladn won it on a GSX-R1000, with top speeds of 190 miles an hour.

Your car isn't fast. Motorcycles are fast.

--
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
Re:Go fast cheap by FatHogByTheAss · 2004-04-27 10:58 · Score: 1

MotoGP qualifiers routinely break 200mph.

--
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
Re:Go fast cheap by adamgeek · 2004-04-27 11:14 · Score: 1

Yoshimura Suzuki livery, the limited edition GSX-R1000 accurately replicates the look of Mladin's championship winning machine

LOOK of his championship winning machine. most of the SBK bikes are putting out 190+hp, or even 200+. compared to the 150-160 of factory oem stuff.. yea.. kinda apples and oranges.
Re:Go fast cheap by FatHogByTheAss · 2004-04-27 11:19 · Score: 1

Uhh, no. AMA Superbike rules are pretty strict on what you can and can't do to the factory bike. Basically, you can put a bigger tank, a new pipe, and tune the injection.

Bolth the Busa and the Gixxer will hit 180, and then some.

--
--
You sure got a purty mouth...
Re:Go fast cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:33 · Score: 0

And if a train goes over 60M/h all the air will be sucked out...
Re:Go fast cheap by coyote_oww · 2004-04-27 11:39 · Score: 1

Most of the 1000cc sportbikes on the market today will do a nice 140+ mph quarter mile, top out at 180+ mph, and corner better than anything short of an indy car for around $10k.
Until you add a tiny bit of sand or gravel (or paint with water on it) to the road...
I'm sympathetic, really. I have a bike. It's not a crotch rocket, but it's still way faster than my WRX up to about 90mph. As long as the road is clean. $^#&, I hate sand on the road!
Re:Go fast cheap by Johnathon_Dough · 2004-04-27 11:47 · Score: 1

"Your car isn't fast. Motorcycles are fast.
Depends on your car. A few years ago CycleWorld magazine tested a high end sport bike (I think it was a GSXR 750 not positive) against a Corvette. The Corvette won in every catagory except acceleration, both from a stop and roll on. Most race track's speed records are held by the race car equivalent of a go-kart, called a Shifter Cart, they can beat NASCAR car's around the track. It isn't just power to weight, it is how much of that power can be imparted to the road. So the two square inches on each tire of a motorcycle can not compete with the 8-10 square inches of a car. The car can then use more of it's power on the ground.
However if you are trying to get away from someone at a standstill, then yeah, a bike, but if you want to be "fast" then get a good sport's car.

--
If you are one in a million, then there are six thousand people who are just like you.
Re:Go fast cheap by adamgeek · 2004-04-27 11:58 · Score: 1

"Early race season points leader Matt Mladin saw his series lead handed over to team mate Aaron Yates when Maladin's 200 horsepower Yoshimura Suzuki"
i dont follow racing series very closely (racing bores me).. but i am of the impression that most of the formula bikes, even if they have to have production displacement and frame, have very highly tuned engines beyond regular factory spec, full titanium exhaust, boxed swingarm, etc etc. correct me if i'm wrong (link above found by quick google search, i am sure i could find more..)
Re:Go fast cheap by Zugok · 2004-04-27 13:54 · Score: 1

I remeber Juan Pablo Montoya (Formula 1) talking to some MotoGP guys and they were discussing where the brake appraoching some corner on a track (I forget specifically which track). Motorbikes need to brake a lot earlier than a car when approaching corners, that's where they lose to cars. Of course, I still think a formula1 car is still going to be faster than a MotoGP bike.

--
"I just can't sit while people are saying nonsense in a meeting without saying it's nonsense" J Watson, Sci Am 288:(4)51
Re:Go fast cheap by the+pickle · 2004-04-27 13:55 · Score: 1

Jay Leno has one of those Allison-powered bikes. One of the bike rags -- forget which one now, but it might have been Motor Cyclist -- did a really cool story about some of his more spectacular bikes a few months back.

NB: a motorcycle will go really really fast in a straight line. Two tires vs. four, though, limits its cornering ability pretty severely. I didn't believe it either, until I saw a bike (I think a Gixxer 1000 or Yamaha R1) raced against a bone-stock Porsche 911 Carrera 4 around a British racing circuit. The Porsche kicked the bike's ass in the corners because it has literally four or five times the contact patch.

But I'd have way more fun on the bike than in the Bugatti, too. ;)

p

--
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Re:Go fast cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 12:22 · Score: 0

More like a 600CC bike to me. There was a British test of an R1 (1000CC) vs a Z06 and the R1 raped the vette like there's no tommorrow. Yeah its apples and oranges I agree.
I have a 97' Honda CBR 600 F3 and I would take that anyday over a Veyron. Who the hell wants to go 250+ MPH which has bad turning capability.
Stock Suzuki Hayabusa's top speed 180 mph? No more like 210! There's a turbo kit. That increases horses and torque throughout the entire powerband. Not sure about off the line but at least mid range and top end wise. Top speed is close to 240.
By the way I kinda wished the U.S. would come out with a sportbike. I think its about damn time!
I just can't imagine super sport bikes 10 years from now...

News flash: by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 10:28 · Score: 3, Informative

There are tons of kit cars and one off race cars that are capable of such feats but you never hear about them because gearheads dont have billion dollar marketing budgets to get news stories written about their flagship image cars.

250 mph top speed is retarded because the only places you can really reach such a speed are on a banked oval track. Overlooking the fact that the veyron is a heavy barge of a car and has mediocre street tires... Even the fastest of close wheeled race cars (many of which have comparable horsepower, much stickier tires, far less weight and better aerodynamics) are hard pressed to break 200mph even on tracks with enormous straight sections. Mostly they keep to speeds below 150 because of having to constantly brake for curves. It would be a much lower speed if they had street tires instead of racing tires. 250mph is a useless speed until tire compounds and braking systems have advanced a VERY long way. The trick is less in getting to 250mph than it is in avoiding things going slower.

As for aerodynamics, it isnt very hard to keep the car planted, even without fancy computer desgined undercar tunnels. There are tons of books on desgning and testing over and underbody aerodymics- much of this knowledge has been floating around for decades.

As for 1000+ hp, there are a ton of big block v8s making that power all over this country. Some making significantly more. A few even do it on pump gas.

Re:News flash: by adamgeek · 2004-04-27 10:39 · Score: 1

180+mph is scary enough, even for well disciplined drivers/riders, heh. and as far as V8's.. heck, there are a lot of I-6's and even 4cyls making that kinda power. course, it's not very streetable, FACTORY power.. but beggers cant be choosers.
Re:News flash: by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 10:50 · Score: 1

Well, near-factory it is possible to get about 400whp out of the late model camaros with a cam and bolt ons, which lets them hit near 200mph speeds without too much drama. The newer mustangs are easily capable of such top speeds with very minor mods (03 cobra + chip + pulley + exhaust).

The problem with most cars hitting 250mph is gearing. With the exception of the large V8s with the crazy long highway cruising gears, most modern cars seem to top out around 150. My miata has the power to hit 170-180, but I never see more than 140mph because I run out of gears. Not factory power tho.
Re:News flash: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:56 · Score: 0

Regardless of tire compounds, brakes and all that, turning at 250 mph will genrate some ferocious G's. More than most people can take.

Heck, even the jet bike has only even ever gone like 210. People should stop repeating theoretical top speeds. Like they have any clue how fast the viper bike would go, but 250+ sounds nice.
Re:News flash: by adamgeek · 2004-04-27 10:58 · Score: 1

those numbers seem kinda high to me. 180+mph takes some good aero on any vehicle.. i dont tend to assume camaros with even 600+rwhp can easily touch 200mph

as far as miatas, i've topped a few out (or nearly so) in my day, around 115.. none were 6spds though, so either you have a 6spd, or a well modded 5spd.

power, gearing, aero..
Re:News flash: by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 11:13 · Score: 1

Top down the car accelerates like a turtle above 130. When I talk top speed in a miata, it is either top up or (better yet) with a hardtop installed.

The 6spd miatas arent any faster than the 5 speeds- they are actually shorter geared. 300 at the wheels, non-stock rear gears (you can buy longer ring and pinions from the mazda factory motorsports program) should be good for 170 mph with a long enough straight and the top up. Others have done it.

For a camaro, the physics work out to 377 whp to allow it to maintain 200mph, so hitting only 180 with mid-low 400s at the wheel on a h/c car should easily be possible on a highway.
Re:News flash: by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:46 · Score: 0

Of course tons of kit cars can pull off stuff like that, but thats not the point. If you read a little bit, you'll see the article is talking about PRODUCTION CARS. This car can do everything the article talks about stock, which is slightly more impressive.
Re:News flash: by eliza_effect · 2004-04-27 12:28 · Score: 1

I wouldn't really call an '03 Cobra "factory." That's at least really pushing the definition.
Re:News flash: by drinkypoo · 2004-04-27 13:48 · Score: 1

I dunno about modern camaros, but I can tell you that my third generation IROC became positively terrifying around 115mph when the front end started to feel like it wanted to come off the ground and flip my ass over backwards. When I felt the front end beginning to get light, I eased off the throttle pretty rapidly, to the point where "eased" is probably not the appropriate term.
I don't know much about miatas except that they are way the hell too small for me to fit in them, but I can tell you that my Nissan 240SX is gear limited to 124 mph, so it sounds like they have more in common than I thought already. (The track and wheelbase are nearly identical, both are RWD, and now I find out they both have close ratio transmissions, which does not surprise me.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:News flash: by the+pickle · 2004-04-27 14:10 · Score: 1

Even the fastest of close wheeled race cars (many of which have comparable horsepower, much stickier tires, far less weight and better aerodynamics) are hard pressed to break 200mph even on tracks with enormous straight sections. Mostly they keep to speeds below 150 because of having to constantly brake for curves.

Yes, that's why they keep to those speeds, but the reason they're hard-pressed to go a lot faster than 200 is because they aren't geared for it. When your powerband is 3000 RPM wide but it doesn't start until 13,500 RPM, you tend to gear the car as close as possible to keep the engine on full boil all the time. If you put proper high-speed gearing on an F1 car and gave it a 10-mile straight, it could *easily* exceed 250. Same with most NASCAR rides, which, it should be noted, had no problems exceeding 200 MPH on superspeedways like Daytona and Talladega before restrictor plates.

I don't believe Bugatti's 250 MPH figure, however. Just like I don't believe McLaren's 237 MPH figure for the F1. It's never been confirmed by a third-party radar test. Hell, I can make the speedo in my Accord read 200 MPH if I want to, and still remain within the legal speed limit. Doesn't mean I'm doing 200 MPH...

As you noted, the Veyron is a brick. It isn't as aerodynamic as the McLaren F1, though it does have about 50% more claimed BHP. I'll believe 250 when Car and Driver shows it to me. Until then, it's marketing hype, and nothing more.

p

--
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Re:News flash: by G-funk · 2004-04-27 14:24 · Score: 1

250 mph top speed is retarded because the only places you can really reach such a speed are on a banked oval track.

Not in australia, we have the darwin-alice highway, which is an excellent quality low traffic road, with
no speed limit and straights going on for hundreds of kilometers.

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:News flash: by aXis100 · 2004-04-27 14:38 · Score: 1

Im sure a kangaroo crashing through your windscreen at 250mph would be an intersting adventure.
Re:News flash: by shiftless · 2004-04-27 15:18 · Score: 1

Top Fuel big block engines make around 8,000 horsepower. Check out some interesting facts:

http://kansas.no-ip.com/power.html

Now, THAT'S power. And no, they don't put those in any production cars. ;)
Re:News flash: by G-funk · 2004-04-27 17:15 · Score: 1

Meh... Hit a roo at 180ks you're fucked, hit it a 400 you're fucked, what difference does it make? I never said it was a good idea :)

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Re:News flash: by rhs98 · 2004-04-28 01:40 · Score: 1

thats because they need a rebuild after 1 1/4mile and a burnout...not very practical...

--
Is it a boat?
Re:News flash: by stanmann · 2004-04-28 03:39 · Score: 1

"Factory"~=walk into dealership and walk out with car after arranging payment. an F1 Mclaren is "Factory"

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
Re:News flash: by sith · 2004-04-28 11:09 · Score: 1

Just for the record, the mcclaren F1 was radar tested to 242mph. There's a video of the run on the net somewhere, with an in-car camera. That's where the official numbers come from.

0-60 in 3 seconds for $1m or $30,000? by loic_2003 · 2004-04-27 10:28 · Score: 3, Interesting

Check out these babies . They can do 0-60 in a mere 2.9 seconds, that's actually 0.1 quicker than the bugatti!

They're powered by two bike engines working together to give a power to weight ratio of 600BHP per tonne, and the amazing part is they only cost around 16,000 although some assembly is required. Top speed isn't close to 250+mph, but do you know anywhere where you could get to that speed (UK driver speaking here!)? These certainly win the 'bang-for-buck' award here, and are available to joe avaerage...

--
http://www.frenchgeek.com/

1000hp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:28 · Score: 1, Informative

As if 1000hp is so impressive. A twin turbo-ed 302 block (a little 5.0 block for those not in the know) can easily push 1500hp at the flywheel with the proper forged parts in the lower end. Plenty of high end drag cars put out 2000-3000hp on average. 1000hp is out of the ordinary, but certainly not a feat of engineering that the text above makes it out to be.

rk

Re:1000hp by Wehesheit · 2004-04-27 10:43 · Score: 1

too true, I often see drag cars when I'm driving around town. A production road car with 1001HP pfft, thats nothing.

--
This P.I.G. will walk on the water, This P.I.G. will walk on the sea, This P.I.G. will walk whereever he wants.
Re:1000hp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:47 · Score: 0

Amen. Most of the geeks here know so little about cars; this is the only thing they have heard of in this class of car so they are instantly amazed.

I had a friend of a friend of a friend with a supercharged 1250bhp Firebird that walked anything off the line and had a 2.7 0-60 (thx G-Tech Pro II!)
Re:1000hp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:00 · Score: 0

Well aren't you just an engine connaisseur.
Re:1000hp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:28 · Score: 0

its all nice and neat going really fast really quick on a streight track, but unless you like driving around the interstates or salt flats it seems kinda usless. The Veyron is able to perform at high speeds, which means that you can negotiate a track. It also can shift a lot better than your friend at .2s shift. so id reather go with the 1001hp veyron and be able to turn than end up in a ditch at the end of the race track in a burning firebird.
Re:1000hp by Wolfier · 2004-04-27 14:59 · Score: 1

There is a saying, that "anyone can build a bridge that stands, but only engineers can build a bridge that barely stands".

1000 hp is not a feat of engineering. Even 5000 hp isn't. Anyone can build high horsepower cars. It is called "brute force". The question is, how do you do it?

It is all the attributes other than the horsepower that makes the difference between "feat of engineering" or not.

i.e. things like: How much oil does it use? How long does it run between maintenances? How quiet is the engine? How much space does it take? How much tuning does it take to run it efficiently?

Finally, it's the most important question: how much can you predict in advance, that how much power it makes, and all the attributes mentioned above, using sound calculations?

"Knowing the approximate results in advance" vs "Just do it and then take measurements" is the biggest difference between something built by engineering and something built by overapplying brute force.
Re:1000hp by MachDelta · 2004-04-27 17:37 · Score: 1

I had a friend of a friend of a friend with a supercharged 1250bhp Firebird that walked anything off the line and had a 2.7 0-60 (thx G-Tech Pro II!)
Your 'friends friend' had the cash to make a 1200hp Firebird... and you tested it with a fucking G-Tech?!?
Are there no drag stips where he lives or what?!

How to pack 1000Hp into a small space by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:29 · Score: 0

1) Turboshaft
2) Wankel, multi-piston
3) Electric
4) Some overly complex & inefficient W-16 reciprocating engine

And they chose #4, god knows why.

Chrysler by austad · 2004-04-27 10:29 · Score: 1

The latest CAR magazine (a british mag) has an article on a new chrysler car which has 958bhp.

In any case, I could not find a link to the this car anywhere, but pick up the mag if you get a chance. Oh, and it's less than half the price of the Bugatti.

--
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum

Re:Chrysler by skiflyer · 2004-04-27 10:47 · Score: 1

The 412 yes? 4 for the number of supercharges and 12 for the number of cylinders...

Google Search

its in their history. by Brigadier · 2004-04-27 10:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Bugatti has been renowned not only as a sports car, but a luxury sports car. It's asking the question what is the absolute best I can buy. where in ferrari for exampe is primarily a sports car creature comforts only as needed. so given the history of the car this is not unheard off. On a side note engine technology has also been pushed as far as the marine world. if i'm not mistaken the original diesign for the W16 engine was taken from one developed for speed boats.

Re:its in their history. by cens0r · 2004-04-27 11:08 · Score: 1

I thought the W16 in this case was really just two of the V8's used in the audi a8 put together and tuned to perfection. The same way the W12 was two VR6's.

--
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re:its in their history. by Brigadier · 2004-04-27 11:23 · Score: 1

I really wish i had a reference, but way before the passatt or even audi was, there was a renowned engine designer who worked with bugatti to develope there w16, engines. I think he has a record for No. of pistons which he set with a marine engines. i'll have to google it.
Re:its in their history. by zeno_2 · 2004-04-27 11:39 · Score: 4, Informative

"Similar to W12, W16 is made by mating two VR8s together, although at the moment Volkswagen group has not shown any VR8. The VR8 consists of 2 banks of 4-cylinder, mated at 15 deg. just like VR6. The two VR8s then join together at 72 deg.. In other words, W16 is just a W12 with one more cylinder added to each bank."
This was linked from here. Pretty interesting page for an amazing set of engines.
Re:its in their history. by zakkie · 2004-04-27 13:36 · Score: 1

Actually not. The true spirit of Bugatti is light weight, pared-to-the-essentials performance cars. Behemoths like the Type 41 (La Royale) and this extremely over-hyped VW partsbin rummage monstrosity are the Bugatti exceptions rather than the norm. VW has lost face over this big time too - only recently they downgraded their claims somewhat from the 250 mph original claim. It is now in doubt whether the Veyron will ever attain its stated goal: to topple the McLaren F1 as the ultimate road car. The downgrade was necessary thanks to technical implications of that much power in their (IMHO) poorly-engineered effort here. Cooling and other concerns seem to have taken a back seat to other concerns that seem to be quite out of place in an effort such as this. When (if!) the Veyron is offered for general sale it will not have the 1001 PS (_not_ bhp - they are slightly different) or the 250 mph claimed top end. VW has the nasty choice to make: re-engineer the whole thing from scratch or take a performance knock. Considering their hefty investment thus far, throwing it all away and starting again isn't really an option.

Ciao

Zak
Re:its in their history. by agallagh42 · 2004-04-27 16:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

You could think of it as two of the Passat's W8 engines mounted end to end.

The W8 is the reason they never made a VR8. I think they can get a smaller overall package out of a W8 (two VR4 engines side by side) than a VR8 (longer and narrower).

--
Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer

The Worlds fastest supercar (Guiness BR) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:30 · Score: 1, Informative

according to Guiness book of records
is this baby

1.33 Gallons per Minute by Jozer99 · 2004-04-27 10:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is that just at full throttle? This car reminds me of some of the huge Dusenburgs in the 1920's. These cars were such gas hogs that you had to turn the car off while pumping in gas, becuase they used it faster than the low power pumps of the day could get it in the tank. Also, I remember Bugatti calling this car a show car, but I don't remember them ever saying they were going to make it. It seems to me that it is not practical enough to drive. At 1.33 GPM, you would need to drive a gas truck behind it to get more than 5 miles! How big a gas tank can this car have? 15-20 Gallons? Think about it...

Re:1.33 Gallons per Minute by nacturation · 2004-04-27 11:35 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's at full bore, 6000 RPM. If you're driving it at say 1500 RPM cruising you'll be getting around four times the efficiency. Without the four turbo chargers kicking in, you'll get a hell of a lot better mileage still.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.

"Are there any cars out there better than this?" by m4ximal · 2004-04-27 10:31 · Score: 1

Sure there is the one and only McLaren F1, and no crazy 1000 HP required too, just some really really kick ass engineering, better yet for acceleration McLaren F1 LM (I think only 2 road-going excist)

Parse error.... by adamofgreyskull · 2004-04-27 10:31 · Score: 1

First off, I've known of Bugatti ever since playing Top Trumps when I was 8 or something.

The first time I read the title, and the second..I read it as Bug-atti and not Bew-gatti, maybe it's the context of /. or just because I'm programming right now... :o)

Karma: Insensitive Clod by xtermin8 · 2004-04-27 10:32 · Score: 0

If you have the audio loud enough, you won't have to hear the crash, (or your passengers screams!) And crash victims know how important that can be when you have to wait for the emergency crew to pry you out!

Re: Are there any cars out there better than this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:32 · Score: 0

I think Chiaki Kuriyama said it best...

"Italia no gomi..."

I'll stick with my '04 Prius, thanks...

Re: Are there any cars out there better than this? by azav · 2004-04-27 10:32 · Score: 0

Get a used 1999 or 2000 BMW M3.

Reliable, sharp and a good performer.

Insurance is $$ though.

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...

Bugatti Accessory by Barkmullz · 2004-04-27 10:32 · Score: 2, Funny

The perfect accessory to the Bugatti

I am a karma whore.

--
Ronald said nothing. He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse, and rode madly off in all directions.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Quikah · 2004-04-27 10:32 · Score: 1

Remember, Google is your friend

--
Q.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-27 10:33 · Score: 1

The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . .

They have.

OT: My '86 RX-7 is a blast to drive. I wish they still made them.

--
Life is too short to proofread.

The thing about comparing cars and planes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Cars are designed to use their engine at 10% of peak output most of the time.

Planes are designed to use their engine at 90% of peak most of the time.

Re:The thing about comparing cars and planes.... by transient · 2004-04-27 14:08 · Score: 1

No sensible pilot cruises at 90% rated power. Typical cruise power settings are 55-75%.

--

irb(main):001:0>
Re:The thing about comparing cars and planes.... by 1029 · 2004-04-27 14:52 · Score: 1

Acutally cars are NOT designed to use their engine at 10% peak output most of the time, and therein lies a major automotive problem. The internal combustion engine in cars is such that it gets best performance when using close to peak output, but normal driving doesn't even come close to peak output most of the time. So in essense the engine is being wasted and as such is wasteful. It is only now with certain gas/electric hybrids that this is being addressed. I think it is the new Prius that will run on only electric up to 40mph, but kicks in the gas engine when it would actually run above 60 or 70% output, where the engine is much more effecient. Why weren't they doing this ages ago?

Anyhow, give me a jet black Trans Am, supercharged to 700hp, over a Prius, anyday :)

--
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
Re:The thing about comparing cars and planes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:17 · Score: 0

Bandit, is that you?
Re:The thing about comparing cars and planes.... by madsenj37 · 2004-04-27 19:16 · Score: 1

Your reffering to hp when the previous poseter is referring to torque. The chevy v8 used in the corvette and other models can get 22 mpg, even with its large size, because torque is optimized down low.

--
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.

Better way by Jozer99 · 2004-04-27 10:34 · Score: 5, Funny

I can see a better way to get that much power. Make a redundant array of independant cars, or RAIC. Take 10 Kias, and weld them together. You get 1200 hp, plus better mileage. Also, who needs run flat tires, if it breaks down, pry one of the Kias out and drive to get help.

Re:Better way by nacturation · 2004-04-27 11:37 · Score: 1

Just imagine a beowulf... oh, never mind.

--
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Re:Better way by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 20:42 · Score: 0

Make a redundant array of independant cars, or RAIC. Take 10 Kias, and weld them together.

Too late. The Red Green Show has beat you to it. However, they used duct tape instead of welding and it was Hyundais instead of Kias.

The goal was to make their own version of a Hummer. I think they actually removed the passenger door of one car and the driver's side door of the other so as to join the two passenger compartments together. (Season 7, episode 145 if you want to know...)
Re:Better way by budly · 2004-04-28 01:50 · Score: 1

I doubt that having 10 kias running at once consumes any less gas than 1 Bugatti Veyron.
Re:Better way by Jozer99 · 2004-04-28 09:21 · Score: 1

The I can stand for Independant and Inexpensive. I chose independant because 10 $12500 Kias gets up there. I didn't check the milage, but for 1200hp, the gas milage won't be that much worse than the 1001hp Bugatti.

Christ, what's next? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:35 · Score: 0

Sports scores?

Extra Metal by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 lbs. of extra metal? Serious question. Is downforce from the spoiler(wing) that much better than extra metal?

Downforce has weight but not mass, so you don't need to expend horsepower accelerating it.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Brigadier · 2004-04-27 10:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Wankel engines in the past have had dependability issues. In a aeronautical sense this isn't too appealing. The old Wankel had serios issues with fuel concumption, and wearing of the plugs, and combution linings. This engine in the Wankel rx-8 is supposed to solve most if not all of these problems. so perhaps now it will be a viable alternative.

Re: Are there any cars out there better than this? by Fizzog · 2004-04-27 10:39 · Score: 1

Buy an M5 and have a man's car, not one of those girly M3's. 8) But want a real car? Drive a 911. There is no substitute. Really.

vapor-car by CitznFish · 2004-04-27 10:40 · Score: 1

still no retail sales, still only prototypes in images and video. An engine that has reliability problems, and all yours fora cool $1million dollars. Uh, no thanks. I'll be amazed if this car ever sees the light of day. They need to cut their losses and move on.

--
'mmmmmmmmm.... forbidden donut'

Re:Further questions... by EmbeddedJanitor · 2004-04-27 10:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

No... The point is that you want those small-dicked meatheads to kill themselves, just so long as they don't kill us geeks in the process.

--
Engineering is the art of compromise.

Are there any cars out there better than this? by Malc · 2004-04-27 10:41 · Score: 1

Yes: Aston Martin. Best looking car on the road.

The McLaren F1 is another car in a class of its own, although they don't make it anymore. I think there are only 200 in the world and suprisingly at over GBP1 million some people own more than one.

Veyron lost it at Laguna Seca. by VeloDrax · 2004-04-27 10:41 · Score: 1

Last August at the Monterey Historic Races, a prototype Veyron spun but fortunately missed the wall at Laguna Seca raceway. Rumor had it that Bugatti (VW) still had a lot of downforce issues to work out before full-scale production could begin. Let's see who owns one first, P. Diddy, Jay Z, or 50 Pennies.

Re: Are there any cars out there better than this? by azav · 2004-04-27 10:41 · Score: 1

I applaud your tastes. Used to race 911's in my race prepped 1971 240 Z. It's nice to have an extra gear at 145. :]

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by big+daddy+kane · 2004-04-27 10:42 · Score: 1

airplanes engines are rarely measured in terms of miles per gallon, its damn near impossible to measure, but instead by hours. Youll notice looking at used planes that their age is measured in flight hours instead of miles. By the hour i'm sure that cars are more efficiant, but by the mile planes by sure. Think about it this way, many single prop two seaters can go a few hundred miles on one tank of gas going around 150 miles/perhour running off a four cylander engine spining at just a few hundred rpm's. Now i know its apples and oranges but you try finding a car that can do that.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by nelsonal · 2004-04-27 10:43 · Score: 1

I think Continental still makes some powerplants for older Cesnas planes, generally they are high compression (even for today), but lower RPM (3000 RPM is near redline). General Aviation is sort of undergoing a rebirth after liability suits went out the window, the industry had died until a few years ago. If you pop out to an FBO I'm sure you could find a few pilots who would show you their bird. Honda was working with Textron on some newer engine designs for GA. Cutting edge (for general consumption) internal combustion technology is likely in Japanese speedsters or some of the new European diesels. In a few years (after the R&D is done there should be some interesting stuff coming out of the general aviation industry), although from what I've seen its more focused on the areodynamics and cabin space rather than improving engines.
Generally the cost of proving a new engine reliable to the FAA was prohibitive for all but a few designs. I'd guess there are some experemental craft (homebuilts) with Wenkels but you'd have to be pretty brave to trust your life to a point seal.

--
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.

Ummm by jeffkjo1 · 2004-04-27 10:43 · Score: 2, Informative

Are there any cars out there better than this?"

I am not a troll, but I'm going to venture and say, all cars. High-priced Italian sportscars are designed to work for about 2-3 years and then fall apart. Their parts are ridiculously expense (I've read how some vehicles oil changes alone are hundreds of dollars.)

Cars like the Veyron are made to be purchased by an elite few who will drive them on rare occasions and keep them in climate controlled garages the rest of the time.

If you've got nothing better to spend your money on, buy out the RIAA.

Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:40 · Score: 0

This is, of course, a German sportscar rather than an Italian one, Bugatti being owned by VW.
Re:Ummm by demi · 2004-04-27 12:16 · Score: 1

I've read how some vehicles oil changes alone are hundreds of dollars.

I own an Audi TT (hardly a supercar) and my last service was almost $500. That wasn't just an oil change, it included some filter changes and stuff, but still. I imagine some of the exotics are actually in the thousands of dollars range for routine things like that: but when you're paying $1M for a car, you don't really consider the cost of maintenance, do you?

I agree with you that cars are meant to be driven, which is why I bought a TT and not a Porsche 911 or something. Um, yeah, that was it, not that I didn't have the money.

--
demi
Re:Ummm by notbob · 2004-04-28 09:17 · Score: 0

BMW dealer wanted $230 per oil change on my M3.... i sold that car :P

I do my own work and still think they're nuts

Dizam that eats gas by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:43 · Score: 0

OK, most /.ers cannot afford the Veyron

Dude, ok, I mean if I had a million dollars for a car I guess it wouldn't be that big of an issue but 1.33 gallons of gas a second? Hmm, thx but I'll take Prius!

Good idea by JMZero · 2004-04-27 10:43 · Score: 1

But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 lbs. of extra metal?

I wonder if the F1 people have thought of this - they could just tow little trailers maybe.

It takes energy to accelerate mass, and 398 pounds is indeed significant.

--
Let's not stir that bag of worms...

What's the point? by interiot · 2004-04-27 10:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

If you're clearly insane (which you'd have to be to go 250mph on the street, in a car that's hugely different aerodynamically from an F1 car), then why not build a motorcycle with better performance for a lower price? Really, this is either 1) like putting linux on a toaster, you do it just because nobody else has, or 2) it's just a way to prove you can blow huge amounts of money.

Re:What's the point? by ybmug · 2004-04-27 11:19 · Score: 1

I ride a motorcycle myself and wondered the same thing when I read this article ;). My *stock* street bike can do 0-60 in 2.7 seconds. It cost only about $12k a few years ago. (It can't do 250mph though - but who want's to?) I don't know how it would compare handling wise, but I would guess quite a few sport bikes could keep up with it and pass it in the turns.

I have seen a video of a turbochaged Suzuki Hayabusa that had 499 hp. The didn't show the top speed of the bike on the video, but they did show it doing wheelies at 170mph+. This means the bike still had quite a bit of power to spare.

There is also the Y2K bike, which is a little more exotic. It is powered by a helicopter turbine engine and has about 320 HP (@ 52,000 RPM!). You can check it out here: http://www.marineturbine.com/.

HowStuffWorks is about to learn one more thing... by TV-SET · 2004-04-27 10:45 · Score: 4, Funny

...and that is "How Slashdot works". :)

--
Leonid Mamtchenkov ...i don't need your civil war...

Re:Further questions... by IceAgeComing · 2004-04-27 10:50 · Score: 1

We should make sure that they have their own lane. Then I could see the beauty.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by skeptikos · 2004-04-27 10:50 · Score: 1

Yes, they are used.

http://www.monito.com/wankel/aircraft.html

Even for R/C planes

http://www.osengines.com/engines/osmg1400.html

I'll believe it when I see it by Laconian · 2004-04-27 10:50 · Score: 1

The Veyron's W16 shatters transmissions like crazy. I'll believe the output and speed numbers when the vehicle actually comes out.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by LurkerXXX · 2004-04-27 10:50 · Score: 1

nah, it'll never happen.

Rotary engines are great. Fantastic power/weight ratios. The problems is they need rebuilt often. Until they can overcome that in the engineering design, they won't be popular for regualr passanger cars. I'm hoping the new RX-8 engines show that they can last longer than the old RX-7's. Rebuilding the engine in your car every 60k miles kinda sucks.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Naffer · 2004-04-27 10:51 · Score: 1

Because you want reliablity in an airplane motor. Mazda's rotaries are not reliable enough. Not to mention they're terribly fuel inefficiant and heat up quickly.

Re: Are there any cars out there better than this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:52 · Score: 0

If you're into speed & Handling more than Show.

I'd take a Lamborghini Diablo VT over any Porsche.

But then again, Porsche is for people who drive like assholes. Just like BMW.

Re:Further questions... by maevius · 2004-04-27 10:52 · Score: 1

Do you mean that you actually get out of the house? You can't fool me, you are no geek...

Airplane engine tech... by g00bd0g · 2004-04-27 10:52 · Score: 1

Is mostly going into refined small piston engines like the Jabiru http://www.jabiru.co.uk/engndsc.html or small turbines similar to these
http://www.amtjets.com

UltraSuperMegaCars by asylum · 2004-04-27 10:52 · Score: 3, Informative

Are there any cars out there better than this?

This may or may not be the best car available. However, it is surprising how much competition the Veyron has:

There are more cars in this class, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.

I don't know how the market can support all of these $250k+ cars. How many people out there can really afford these? Wish I was one of them :(

Re:UltraSuperMegaCars by the+pickle · 2004-04-27 13:58 · Score: 1

All of which I'd rather have than the Bugatti, because all of them look better, and all of them, except for the McLaren, cost substantially less.

Heck, you could almost have two Enzos or Carrera GTs for that price.

Or one Enzo/Carrera GT and 10 Ducati 999Rs.

p

--
In Korea, long hair is for old people!

Horsepower... by InvaderXimian · 2004-04-27 10:53 · Score: 2, Informative

All this talk about horsepower and not many even know that it's actually pretty easy to get to the 1000 mark. Toyota Supras, a ricer's wet dream, can be tuned to that level realatively easy as well as the Nissan Skyline. Of course, what do 600-(~)900HP Supras have in common? The same 1/4 mile times. (not true in all cases you anal geeks)

To true car enthusiasts who enjoy driving, it's more about speed in a corner rather than straight line speed. What's the point to having a 1000HP car if you can't turn it?

Anyway, what has me worried as that the US auto companies are sell more "high horsepower" cars and cheaper than the European ones. They're "fast cars on a budget." A good example would be the Dodge Neon (SRT-4) or the Pontiac GTO. Since they are cheap and the Neon pretty much being a "girls car," it would be purchased to be given to inexperienced teenage drivers and many accidents will follow. I've seen at least 4 SRT-4 roll-overs, all by teenage drivers.

The European companies such as BMW or Mercedes, their "performance" cars will be pushing incredible figures, something along the lines of 500HP for the new M5 and 600 some for the CL65. These cars are out of most people's budgets, but what the point is that BMW and Mercedes are putting in many safety gadgets that help the driver with traction in many conditions and BMW's Dynamic Stability Control system will even put the brakes on individual wheels when the car senses a slip so you don't go skidding out of control. Merc has a similar system. I haven't heard of any such things from Dodge or Pontiac.

In the end what I really want to ask is, will Bugatti be responsible as to whom they sell the cars to and also add as many safety features as they can? If you have something that fast and add an inexperienced driver, a horrible wreak will ensue.

Re:Horsepower... by Skyshadow · 2004-04-27 11:02 · Score: 1

In the end what I really want to ask is, will Bugatti be responsible as to whom they sell the cars to and also add as many safety features as they can? If you have something that fast and add an inexperienced driver, a horrible wreak will ensue.
Most supercars aren't so much on the extra features. It tends to break down to basic (if awesome) car bits, the road and you.
Ferrari has tried to limit the distribution of their Dear-God model, the Enzo, to people less likely to wreck them by limiting sales of the car to people who have already owned another Ferrari (and who are therefore presumably somewhat used to having way too much get up and go).
I'm not sure about the overall success of the program, but from an anecdotal standpoint it doesn't seem to be working out very well -- there have been quite a number of wrecked Enzos cropping up around the internet, which I'd presume is a good percentage of the total Enzo population given the small production.
Most people just don't have the skills to drive a race car after a short how-to from the dealer.

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Re:Horsepower... by trulymadlydeeply · 2004-04-27 11:32 · Score: 1

What about safety for the rest of us who have to drive with these guys on the roaD?
Re:Horsepower... by jmpvm · 2004-04-27 11:55 · Score: 1

From someone piloting cars like these with you guys on the road, here are some helpful safety hints.

If you see someone coming up very quickly from behind, in your lane or an adjacent one:

1. We see you. Don't tap your brakes.
2. Please, please, please GOD, don't change lanes. Wait will we blow by.
3. Flashing your brights as we pass only makes us chuckle.

Hope this helps. :)
Re:Horsepower... by jmpvm · 2004-04-27 12:10 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about the overall success of the program, but from an anecdotal standpoint it doesn't seem to be working out very well -- there have been quite a number of wrecked Enzos cropping up around the internet, which I'd presume is a good percentage of the total Enzo population given the small production.
Wrecked cars do not necessarily mean inexperienced drivers. Many car enthusiasts push their cars to the limit. Whats the limit? Well, there is no real good way to know that. Know how to find it? Pass it. :)

Every very good driver I've ever known has wrecked their fair share of vehicles. Thats how they learn how to drive the car to it's limit.
Re:Horsepower... by Wolfier · 2004-04-27 14:44 · Score: 1

>will Bugatti be responsible as to whom they
>sell the cars to and also add as many safety
>features as they can?

Of course it will. Bugatti is owned by VW, a German carmaker that gives its econoboxes like the Golf traction-controll goodies (e.g. ASR, which is also available on Mercedes and Audi).
Re:Horsepower... by KozmoStevnNaut · 2004-04-27 20:27 · Score: 1

If I'm going above the legal speed limit in the fast lane (which is 110km/h here in Denmark) on a hiway and some schmuck in a big BMW or Audi comes up behind me and begins flashing his lights like a maniac because he thinks I'll pull out of "his lane", I will tap my brakes, and when I let him pass, he will get the one-finger salute. If you're being an asshole to me, I'll make sure to be an asshole to you, too.

Of course, since I'm a somewhat responsible driver, I won't hog the fast lane, more than absolutely neccesary. But some people seem to think that they own the road, and that pisses me off.

--
Eat the rich.
Re:Horsepower... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2004-04-28 00:52 · Score: 1

Most people just don't have the skills to drive a race car after a short how-to from the dealer.
Hell, most people don't have the skills to drive a normal car. Some bearly have the skills to drive a normal car at normal speeds aswell ;)
Re:Horsepower... by stanmann · 2004-04-28 03:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

OK, so just because you drive like a tool, I should too. If I'm cruising in the cruising lane(on a 2 lane road its the one on the same side as your steering wheel) and I see you coming behind me, I'm going to do as the law prescribes and pull to the side to let you pass on the appropriate side... also as the law prescribes. If you try to pass me on the wrong side, you may just hit me. OTOH, If I see you coming up behind me and I"m not in that lane, I will postpone passing till you are past me. If you hit me from behind, its your fault and you can pay for my medical care since you obviously can afford the car and associated fuel and insurance costs.

--
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed

Subaru WRX Sti by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:54 · Score: 0

Is a better car for the real world.

As for the Bugatti : Ettore Bugatti is spinning in his grave at the
mere thought of his name being misused this way !

F1 has been getting over 900BHP out of 3 liters... by mmclure · 2004-04-27 10:55 · Score: 1

That's with a normally aspirated (i.e. no turbo/superchargers) V10 engine. Of course, instead of revving at 6000RPM, they regularly hit over 19000RPM (6000RPM is idle for an F1 engine).

Re:Further questions... by kfg · 2004-04-27 10:55 · Score: 1

I used to work out of the home of a county coroner. I got to hear all the stories the next day as he traipsed in tired and haggard.

Most of these guys do themselves in in the middle of the night. They think radar can't see in the dark or something.

As it happens, neither can they.

"Hey, where did that tree come fr........WHACK!"

KFG

the ME Four-Twelve by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 10:55 · Score: 0

It's called the Chrysler ME Four-Twelve (Mid-Engined, four turbos, twelve cylinders).

Re:the ME Four-Twelve by Keith+Russell · 2004-04-27 12:45 · Score: 1

It's called the Chrysler ME Four-Twelve (Mid-Engined, four turbos, twelve cylinders).

That would be the one. Still a prototype at this stage, but the performance targets are dazzling. Follow the parent's link, and you'll see what I mean.

It sounds like the Veyron and ME Four-Twelve are using very similar transmissions, but the Chrysler engine produces a more manageable 850 lb/ft of torque, thus avoiding the biggest development issue VW has had with the Veyron. I think VW derived their transmission from their DSG, while Chrysler farmed theirs out to a racing gearbox specialist, Ricardo.

What allows Chrysler to make up the horsepower gap is weight. The Veyron weighs about 4300 lbs, according to Howstuffworks. The ME Four-Twelve weighs only 2880 lbs. The article mentions that the Dodge Viper weighs 1000 lbs less than the Veyron. The ME Four-Twelve weighs 500 lbs less than the Viper. Colin Chapman would be proud. :-)

What amazes me is that Dr. Piech thinks he can charge US$1,000,000 for the Veyron, while Chrysler estimates that the ME Four-Twelve would sell for around $250,000. Did VW really use $750,000 of wood and leather in the interior?!

--
This sig intentionally left blank.

HowStuffWorks by m4ximal · 2004-04-27 10:55 · Score: 1

There is an older article by Gordon Murray (McLaren chief designer) dealing with exactly the same issues. Basically Murray talks about how little horse power means at speed of 250+ MPH, and how it's a balance between weight, aerodynamic qualities of the frame and body and HP that make cars like this break records. And that is why Veron has not and will not break any records

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by rcw-home · 2004-04-27 10:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

60 years ago when internal combustion propellor planes were the standard, I'm guessing that the prop plane defined the hi-tech, high powered, low weight internal combustion engine. Anyone know if that's still true?

If you're referring to General Aviation propellor aircraft, the answer is definately no.

Chances are that the Lycoming or Continental engine in your average Cessna has changed very very little over the past 50 years. Even though intercooling and turbocharging are more common options today, they are still air-cooled, still cruise at 2500-3000rpm, and still magneto-fired. If you took a time machine, kidnapped an A&P from 1950 and put him here, he would probably die from the shock of everything being exactly the same. If not, he would begin a spree to kill all of the lawyers responsible.

By comparison, your car's engine is about 25% more fuel-efficient, can produce 50-100% more power per unit of displacement thanks to its higher speed, is liquid-cooled, is often variably-timed, will run on unleaded low-octane fuel, and is probably much quieter than an aircraft engine.

Many automotive engines, from Honda Goldwing engines to Chevy 350 cu. in. V8's and on up, are converted to air use in Experimental Aviation. They usually must be geared down to swing a decent-sized prop at a reasonable mach number (supersonic prop tips are bad). Some pilots do this because of the costs of a certified engine ($20k+, plus regular maintenance by an A&P), some do it because 100LL avgas is so expensive, some do it because they believe the end result will be more trustworthy.

As for rotaries, yes, they'll save you a bunch on weight (and size, if needed), and some people put them in experimental aircraft. They have very few moving parts which increases reliability. Unfortunately the combustion chamber in a rotary has so much more surface area (per unit of displacement) than the equivalent reciprocal engine that rotaries will probably continue to lag 15-20% behind reciprocal engines on fuel efficiency.

Doing it for real by MrIrwin · 2004-04-27 10:57 · Score: 1

Bugatti's are show cars.

Ferrari have always been putting the closest thing to a racing car on the real road, and I think it would be interesting to pitch the Bugatti against the Enzo on real roads.

BTW, you don't need 1000 HP to do 0-60 in 3 seconds, just tires that are so soft you will have have to change them every couple of hundred miles, which is not long at that speed!

Horse power comes into play at higher speeds, you need a lot of downdraught to get high performance in corners, as well as stay on the road at 250Mph. F1 cars have so much downdraught they could run upside down on the celing ay only 100mph.

The downshot of the downdraught is that you need a lot of horsepower to force those inverted wings througth the air!

--

And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

Re:Doing it for real by m4ximal · 2004-04-27 11:25 · Score: 1

Actually the Murray's article says the exact opposite. It says as speeds increase pure hp matters less and less, and aerodynamic properties of the design more and more. I read the article quite a while ago, but I distinctly remember that point. It also makes a lot of sense to me, back in college i learned in physics that drag is preoperational to area of cross-section perpendicular to motion and the speed with which the body is moving.
Re:Doing it for real by aXis100 · 2004-04-27 14:31 · Score: 1

Yes, but at high speed, you need more downforce to keep the car on the road. Producing downforce also causes drag.

So yes, whilst you can get very aerodynamic things to go very fast, they wont be turning corners like that. For race car performance, you need horsepower to compensate for the drag of the wings.

Re:What? by RobertB-DC · 2004-04-27 10:59 · Score: 1

Foo: I have a Veyron you insensitive clod!
Bar: Modding your 1982 Pinto doesn't count.

Man, and I thought overclocking your brain was pushing the limit!

--
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-04-27 10:59 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It's important to keep it on the road by gilesjuk · 2004-04-27 10:59 · Score: 1

Don't want the rich healthy successful people taking themselves out of the gene pool. But of course it would be good if they have a special cut down safety system if the owner is a lawyer :)

Bugatti=Audi=Volkswagen+Problems with gearbox by NoSuchGuy · 2004-04-27 11:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Bugatti was bougt by Audi in 1998?. Audi is part of the Volkswagen AG.

They have tremendous problems with the gearbox. The 1000hp is only a marketing thingy. But now their problem is that their gear box breaks after about 3 months with the power of the 1000hp. Their solution: A smaller version with only 800hp to match the gearbox.

Their problems:
- customers ordered the 1000hp version not the smaller one
- producing a gearbox to handle all that torque that 1000hp produce.

Are there any cars out there better than this?
Porsche Carrera GT At Porsche the don't design for top speed for driving straigt ahead, they design for top speed in curves!

--
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/

Diesel Wankels. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:06 · Score: 0

"As for rotaries, yes, they'll save you a bunch on weight (and size, if needed), and some people put them in experimental aircraft. They have very few moving parts which increases reliability. Unfortunately the combustion chamber in a rotary has so much more surface area (per unit of displacement) than the equivalent reciprocal engine that rotaries will probably continue to lag 15-20% behind reciprocal engines on fuel efficiency."

Actually that sounds like a good reason to raise the compression ratio. The only thing you have to worry about is preignition when you do that. But then they could make a Wankel diesel, that would work better, since diesel is closer to kerosene than gasoline.

Speed by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:07 · Score: 0

Too bad their webserver doesn't seem to be as powerful as the "W-16" Engine.... God bless the /. effect.

Why not go to the source? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:07 · Score: 0

Why not skip the car-dealer middleman and just get yourself a penis implant instead?

compact engine my ass by craqboy · 2004-04-27 11:09 · Score: 1

"How do you fit 1,000 horsepower into a compact engine?"

Its a freaking 16 cylinder engine. Not sure that I would call that compact my friend.

I want one... by Whatthehellever · 2004-04-27 11:10 · Score: 1

I want this car in the next version of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

--

---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.

I have a disused air strip... by adamofgreyskull · 2004-04-27 11:10 · Score: 1

...you insensitive clod!

As exploited here. :o)

On a more serious note, and I won't pretend to know more about race cars than you, but how is any innovation a bad thing? (And reading the howstuffworks article gives the impression there is a fair bit of innovation here.)
Would I be correct if I likened this to the people who overclock their CPUs and GPUs to insane speeds, have bottle-necks at their hard-drive and only ever test the limits in artificial benchmarks? :o)

Luxury My Ass by dbretton · 2004-04-27 11:11 · Score: 3, Funny

No bluetooth!

Re:Luxury My Ass by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:34 · Score: 0

I'm sure the Tooth device with the name "My Bugatti Veyron" would be quite effective in the Toothing community ;P

Best Car in the World ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:11 · Score: 0

It all depends on what you consider to be your needs as to what car is the best in the world for you. The best car is the one that suits your needs and lifestyle specifically with no additional features and no less.

For myself, I drive a Hummer H1. I find that it meets my needs for much of my driving. It is the safest vehicle in production (12 deaths in automobile accidents and most due to alchohol -- not the vehicle. Not bad for over 10 years of production.) I fact, I would have been killed several years ago had I been driving anything else. (Caught in a flash flood with wife and two kids and washed 3 miles down the canyon before barely escaping with our lives.) As you might guess, I do a lot of off-road driving. I like being able to handle the most agressive off-road trails in Moab (Utah) and being able to drive home in the same vehicle with air conditioning.

On the other hand, the greenie-weenies might choose to drive a hybrid because of their superior gas milage even though they are not typically convenient for hauling stuff or people. (Actually, I'm considering one for around town driving.) But, that what is most important to them. And for them, it is the "best car."

Others may choose a sports car and of course, there is a whole gammut of choices there each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Some fast, some more practical. For me, it doesn't make much sense since the roads are all have the same speedlimit anyway but the point is that it does make sense for some.

So in the end, I am very hesitant to say that one car is better than another. It all depends on what your needs are as to what a person needs.

I used to hate asking someone a question and having them answer "it depends" but for questions like this, it is really the best answer.

The only problem... by EduardoFonseca · 2004-04-27 11:12 · Score: 1

is that VW will probably not release it. I've read a lot of info about this car, and even the engineering team is demotivated with the project.

Too bad, a very nice and FAST car.

Most of the criticisms... by ultramk · 2004-04-27 11:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

...I'm reading here are kind of off-base.

"You can only drive 60(75,85)mph anyway, what a waste"

"The small-penised guys who buy this will kill themselves in 15 minutes"

"How pointless, it only gets 3mpg!"

etc, etc, etc.

Hmmmm, where do I begin. The people who are in the market to buy this automobile are not going to drive it every day. In fact, they will probably transport it in its own trailer if they take it to any concours, etc.

The main thing is, you're viewing this as a car. It isn't. It's a piece of kinetic, semi-functional sculpture. The collectors will buy this, then put it in their lovely 30,000sq.ft. showroom, and maybe take it around the block once in a while to get a little sun.

There are people with vast amounts of money who appreciate exceptional feats of engineering and design. Jay Leno is one. The Sultan of Brunai is another.

As far as the driving like assholes, that only happens with idiot rockstars and the like who just got a million dollar paycheck. The vast majority of the people driving this car will be doctors, investment bankers and the like. These guys drive carefully.

I live in Carmel, CA. We have the Concours d'Elegance here at Pebble Beach every year, and countless other similar events at nearby Laguna Seca. In addition, there are enough Ferraris and the like around here normally that I usually see 2-3 on the way to work every day. Hell, Porsches are common as VW beetles around here. I've never seen any of the more exotic cars driven less than super-carefully.

Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it costs much less then some of the jewelry worn at the Oscars... and this is much cooler then some bling-bling necklace.

-m

--
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas

Re:Most of the criticisms... by QuantumRiff · 2004-04-27 12:02 · Score: 4, Funny

First rule of driving in Southern California. On the highways, cut off the sports cars.. their breaks are better and their owners are more motivated to miss you! ;)

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Re:Most of the criticisms... by theLOUDroom · 2004-04-27 12:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

As far as the driving like assholes, that only happens with idiot rockstars and the like who just got a million dollar paycheck. The vast majority of the people driving this car will be doctors, investment bankers and the like. These guys drive carefully.

You mean like Bill Gates was doing when he got arrested for reckless driving?

Hmmmm, where do I begin. The people who are in the market to buy this automobile are not going to drive it every day. In fact, they will probably transport it in its own trailer if they take it to any concours, etc.

Yes, but a car says something about your taste as well. It's like the guy who chooses the most expensive wine in the restraurant vs. the guy who chooses the best. The Veyron has a lot of power, but power isn't free.

Excerpt from an earlier post of mine:
This actually has the interesting implication that if you know the fastest you ever want to go and can sustain 1G acceleration up to that point, any additional horsepower is a waste of weight which will detract from the vehicle's braking and cornering performance. (Tire frictional force is nonlinear WRT weight.)

For me, it's about taste. I'd rather have a less powerful car with much better handling than 1000 "look how big my penis is" horsepower. For a true automotive enthusiast, there are other factors that must be considered besides straight line performance.

A good car is a real balancing act. One has to weigh horsepower, aerodynamics, weight balance, moment of intertia, suspension geometry, unsprung mass, etc.
I like to joke, that with enough money you could make a picnic table run a 10 sec. quarter mile, but in the end you've just got a really fast picnic table.

Personally, I'd rather have Bill Gate's Porsche 959 than this monstrosity. It's like the difference between wearing huge gawdy gold chains around your neck vs. wearing a classic and valuable wristwatch.

--
Life is too short to proofread.
Re:Most of the criticisms... by demachina · 2004-04-27 14:29 · Score: 1

"There are people with vast amounts of money who appreciate exceptional feats of engineering and design."

You're just trying to make something stupid sound cool. It must work because lots of guys with more money than they know what to do with seem to have decided something stupid is cool. Carmack's car for instance is foolish excess though every geek in the place is drooling over it. I'm hoping he came to his senses and is sinking more of his cash in the X prize which is a worthwhile endeavor that will make a difference in the world. Tricking out a car simply doesn't.

If people are in this for the engineering they should be racing on a closed course where they would be tasked to prove the engineering really is good, and maybe put their fat ass on the line driving it. As another reply to your post said there is a lot more to exceptional engineering than counting horsepower and tuning the sound system. Its just stupid and wasteful to the extreme to go to incredible lengths to make a car that can go fast, in a somewhat half ass way, and then park it in a showroom.

I supposed it could be rationalized as an investment and a collectors item. But then the whole concept is predicated on there being a network of stupid guys with more money than they know what to do with that makes it a worthwhile investment.

If you've got the money to waste you would win a lot more respect from your peers if you donated it to medical research, get a building named after you, and maybe save some peoples lives someday. Or donate it to an orphanage or a scholarship fund and give some kids a shot at a life that doesn't suck and at maybe doing something important some day and making a lasting contribution to the world. People would remember you with some respect then, as someone who made a difference in the world, instead of as "a prick" that wasted umpteen millions on cars he never drove.

--
@de_machina
Re:Most of the criticisms... by demachina · 2004-04-27 15:58 · Score: 1

Here is an interesting link to a story from Fortune Magazine on the Sultan of Brunei and his family. Its a little hard to find online but it is still in Google cache. You keep hearing people oooh and aaah about the Sultan but this is the first time I found out the details of his whacky little world. In at least one case I think it proves my point that the people who collect these silly cars tend to not be the best of people. When it was written in 1999 Brunei's finances were a disaster area though a continuing stream of oil can patch over a pretty big financial disaster.
The Sultan is a descendent of a 600 year old royal family, they didn't preside over much but the steaming jungles of Borneo until Shell struck oil in the 1970's. The article refers to them as the Muslim version of the Beverly Hillbillies with a propensity for marrying first cousins which translates in to inbreeding, and a probably a penchant for all the ill effects that go with 600 years of inbreeding.
The Sultan, the Emir of Kuwait, the Saudi Royal family, all of these corrupt Muslim monarchies that struck it rich on oil are at the heart of why the Muslim world is exploding today and are the #1 customer for silly super cars.

--
@de_machina
Re:Most of the criticisms... by Prune · 2004-04-27 20:40 · Score: 1

This is a classic 'sour grapes' post.

--
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Re:Most of the criticisms... by tfb · 2004-04-27 21:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it costs much less then some of the jewelry worn at the Oscars... and this is much cooler then some bling-bling necklace.

Actually, it's ugly as fuck, isn't it? If I had that kind of money to spend on a car I'd definitely try and buy something that didn't look quite so horrible. An AC Ace (for instance) is probably just as fun to drive and a lot more interesting (so it's 50 years old, who actually cares?). I'm sure a souped-up Lotus of some kind is just as exciting to drive, much prettier. You could both, and say a Bristol for day-to-day use, and a house, with the same money.

So, well, I think this is definitely appealing to the I-have-something-to-make-up-for crowd.
Re:Most of the criticisms... by demachina · 2004-04-28 10:50 · Score: 1

Oh yeah sure. Sour grapes for suggesting that it might be wise to spend a million dollars on orphans or a scholarship fund instead of wasting it on a car that is neither a good street car nor a good race car. I think the original poster suggested something about people who appreciate the engineering. In my book, good engineering is designing something that is well suited for the objective. This car is ridiculous overkill for a street car and bad for racing so where exactly is the good engineering.

If you can explain the wisdom in wasting a million dollars on this car I'm all ears.

--
@de_machina

Actually it doesn't do 250mph by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:14 · Score: 0

It has high speed stability problems and is not able to achieve those speeds safely.

Popular Science? by Momomoto · 2004-04-27 11:17 · Score: 1

No such thing exists. More like "Nerdular Nerdence".

--
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz

Are there any cars better than this? by gtshafted · 2004-04-27 11:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's the point of being able to go 250mph on the ground when you could either kill someone or get a big ticket?

I would rather have this instead
http://www.moller.com/.

Re:Are there any cars better than this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:29 · Score: 0

They do it on a racetrack, dumbass.
Re:Are there any cars better than this? by gtshafted · 2004-04-27 11:58 · Score: 1

what's the point of only being able to drive around in a circle at a couple hundred miles an hour?
Re:Are there any cars better than this? by jd · 2004-04-27 12:11 · Score: 1

I'd like to know who the cop is, who would chase and catch a 250mph car!

Assuming such a cop exists, don't you think they deserve to get paid the full amount on that ticket, just for being so utterly insane?

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Are there any cars better than this? by KnightStalker · 2004-04-27 12:55 · Score: 1

Yeah, the cop has these tools that easily go faster than 250 miles per hour. They're known as "radio waves" and they can almost magically summon more cops, complete with roadblocks! It's amazing what they can do with technology these days...

--
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."
Re:Are there any cars better than this? by the+pickle · 2004-04-27 14:02 · Score: 1

+1, Insightful for the first sentence.

-1, Rampant Vapourware for the second.

p

--
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
Re:Are there any cars better than this? by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-04-27 15:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's the point of being able to go 250mph on the ground when you could either kill someone or get a big ticket?

Oh yeah, 95 km/h == safe, 105 km/h == menace to society. Plenty of people get killed around town at 50 km/h. Plenty of people get killed and broken at 70 km/h. It's not speed that kills, it's bad driving/lack of attention/lack of maintenance. But it's easier to blame speed than it is to address the 80% of the driving population who can bearly keep it on the road.

Tickets are mostly about revenue collection. Here in NZ we have just had "stealth" speed cameras and Police in hot Civics and old vans introduced. The 10 km/h waiver is now at the officers descretion. On Friday night, they'll have 6 patrol cars turn up to bust a group of boy racers burning it up on the outskirts of town. And y'know what, they now take *days* to turn up after your house has been broken into.

BTW, anyone remember that German lady who crashed her little car when she swerved hard after she freaked out from seeing a BMW behind her doing 250 km/h or so? She was in the fast lane doing about 100 km/h. Idiot driving on her part? Oh no, it's that evil speeding person's fault.

Yes, I'm sick of the automotive FUD that's been spread for that last decade or two.

And to answer your question, possibly they're targeting folks who want to play on the racetrack, or play on the few unrestricted sections of autobahn left.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Are there any cars better than this? by rpaehlig · 2004-04-27 20:46 · Score: 1

BTW, anyone remember that German lady who crashed her little car when she swerved hard after she freaked out from seeing a BMW behind her doing 250 km/h or so? She was in the fast lane doing about 100 km/h. Idiot driving on her part? Oh no, it's that evil speeding person's fault.

Yes. She was on the 'fast lane'. Probably the right lane was occupied by even slower driving trucks. But still, even in germany, the recommended top speed is 130km/h. Anything above that is speeding.

Regardless of what car you drive, the autobahn is not personally yours.
Re:Are there any cars better than this? by BiggerIsBetter · 2004-04-27 22:09 · Score: 1

Fair enough, I'm just saying that the act of getting out of the way should not have been fatal. All she had to do was change lanes. Yanking on the wheel at 100 km/h and then putting your car in a ditch is something that shows a complete lack of car control - something which doesn't seem to get addressed. She screwed up and he got blamed for it.

Just to counter the "but he was speeding" argument, 1) it misses the point 2) would she have had the same panic reaction if she saw an X5 or M-series filling her mirror at 130 km/h? I think she probably would have.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Re:Are there any cars better than this? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2004-04-28 01:17 · Score: 1

Don't you Americans have speed cameras?

VW *owns* Bugatti,Lamborghini, Audi, Bentley, Seat by jerk · 2004-04-27 11:23 · Score: 1

VW isn't "buying rights to famous nameplates", they're buying automakers. They only owned Rolls Royce for a couple years before it was sold to BMW.

Ever watch the Gumball 3000 video? by activesynapsis · 2004-04-27 11:23 · Score: 1

A guy had a Koenig and it broke down at least seven times. Clutch, some part of the coolant system... I think the car's just made to look pretty.

Shop or Compare Prices by ajd1474 · 2004-04-27 11:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Cool, there is a "Shop or Compare Prices" link at the end of the article!

'We couldn't find any product matches on Shopping.com for "the Bugatti Veyron"'

Damn!

--
I refuse to have a sig... dammit!

Re: Are there any cars out there better than this? by black+mariah · 2004-04-27 11:26 · Score: 1

There is no substitute.

Except for a regulation-sized penis or hair extensions. ;-)

--
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.

Hmm.. bit premature by fullofangst · 2004-04-27 11:34 · Score: 0

"Are there any cars out there better than this"

Judging by the amount of delays this car is suffering, I'd say there were a -lot- of better cars out there right now!

One of my favourite and informative motoring magazines, Evo, points out the fact that a car designed to be stable and easy to handle at 240 miles per hour will probably be extremely stale and unrewarding to drive under 100. As a status symbol, this car will be absolutely monumental (assuming it ever comes out without being diluted too much), but for a drivers car there are many, many better choices.

Re:"Are there any cars out there better than this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:37 · Score: 0

mclaren built 6 lm's, 1 prototype and 5 consumer cars. 100 f1s were built.

Koenigsegg by castrox · 2004-04-27 11:38 · Score: 1

There's always the Koenigsegg..

--
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/

You wanna go fast? by SaDan · 2004-04-27 11:40 · Score: 1

I've personally gone in excess of 160mph in a '69 Camaro with just a 355cid V8, no nitrous, no turbos, no blower, on pump gas.

You want to read up about someone who knows how to make fast passenger cars?

http://www.bankspower.com/on_the_salt.cfm

287HP in a very-near-stock body Pontiac Firebird on pump gas, and that was years ago.

My 2002 Camaro by Imidazole · 2004-04-27 11:40 · Score: 0

I'll have to use this as a reference when I pass the 600hp mark ;)

--
-Imidazole
Hilarious Office Prank!

Re:My 2002 Camaro by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:10 · Score: 0

Camaro's are shit. Ugliest cars on the road.

Slow as hell too. I've never lost in my far superior 2004 mustang mach 1.
Re:My 2002 Camaro by Imidazole · 2004-04-30 15:29 · Score: 0

I dont know what you're smoking, but I have yet to have a Mach1 come close to my SS. I've got six or seven Mach1 kills under my belt, on the track, and off the track. I've test drove one with a buddy of mine, and after getting slaughtered by my SS he went along and bought the GT and supercharged it. Now he's slaughtering me, and glad he didnt put up with that POS Mach 1.

--
-Imidazole
Hilarious Office Prank!

Video's from Bugatti's Web Site by JABoyce · 2004-04-27 11:45 · Score: 1

These are hard to find on bugatti's site... Lots of flash to navigate through. But through the miracle of packet sniffing....

http://www.bugatti-cars.de/bugatti/flash/home/mo de lle/veyron/technik/motor/1001ps/mov/1_en_hi.swf
h ttp://www.bugatti-cars.de/bugatti/flash/home/mode lle/veyron/technik/motor/1001ps/mov/2_en_hi.swf
h ttp://www.bugatti-cars.de/bugatti/flash/home/mode lle/veyron/technik/motor/1001ps/mov/3_en_hi.swf
h ttp://www.bugatti-cars.de/bugatti/flash/home/mode lle/veyron/technik/motor/1001ps/mov/4_en_hi.swf
h ttp://www.bugatti-cars.de/bugatti/flash/home/mode lle/veyron/technik/motor/1001ps/mov/5_en_hi.swf
h ttp://www.bugatti-cars.de/bugatti/flash/home/mode lle/veyron/technik/motor/1001ps/mov/6_en_hi.swf
h ttp://www.bugatti-cars.de/bugatti/flash/home/mode lle/veyron/technik/motor/1001ps/mov/7_en_hi.swf

--
JBoyce

250mph? by YrWrstNtmr · 2004-04-27 11:48 · Score: 1

How do you keep a passenger car on the road at 250mph?

You don't. You keep it on the racetrack.

RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 11:52 · Score: 0

This was mentioned in both articles, but Bugatti does not make high-performance cars. They make luxury high-performance cars. Unless your hypothetical motorcycle has heavy leather seating and wood panelling and a ridiculously good audio system, it's just not a good comparison.

Well really I guess it's trying to look elite ("elite" in the classical sense, not 31337). High society just doesn't ride motorcycles to the opera, for whatever reason.

/. Expert Alert :P by Daath · 2004-04-27 11:55 · Score: 1

Well, if you had read the "article", you would have known that the tires are special. And indeed they have to be.
As for 400 Km/h speeds being useless, that may be, but:

" Our Bugatti test driver says the car is so stable at 236 mph you can drive with one hand on the wheel."

It sounds like it can be done without a lot of problems.

" As for aerodynamics, it isnt very hard to keep the car planted, even without fancy computer desgined undercar tunnels. There are tons of books on desgning and testing over and underbody aerodymics- much of this knowledge has been floating around for decades.

I'm glad you think it's easy. Bugatti who knows a little about such matters, thought:

"... aerodynamics was the biggest challenge. That the car doesn't fly. We needed a lot, a lot, of wind-tunnel testing. With the moving tail spoiler we've got enough downforce now, about 100 kg (221 pounds) at the rear and 80 kg (177 pounds) at the front at top speed

They seem to think it a great challenge. Maybe you should take your books and go work for them ;)

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.

Re:/. Expert Alert :P by rcw-home · 2004-04-27 12:34 · Score: 1

I'm glad you think it's easy. Bugatti who knows a little about such matters [...] seem to think it a great challenge.
The people who know how easy it is to create 400kg of lift at those speeds aren't exactly Bugatti's target sales demographic.
400lbs downforce at 340 f/s at sea level with 5 sq. ft. of wing (guessing here) is only a lift coefficient of 0.6.
I'd be willing to bet you could get that with a 5 foot long 2x12 board.
Re:/. Expert Alert :P by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 13:07 · Score: 1

They are either lying or incompetent if getting 400 lbs of downforce is such a big deal, especially at 250mph. With underbody work and a smallish wing, I have seen miatas generate nearly that much at 120mph , as measured by a suspension poteniometer (measure the compression of a known rate spring at each mph). At 250mph the downforce should be measured in thousands of lbs.

Then again, maybe they are measuring downforce in some relative way and not telling us what the baseline figure means. Its like the people who are buying veyrons know the first thing about cars anyway, so they could have said it made 3325235 trillion newton meters of downforce or something and people would have been just as amazed. Omg lol metric lol advanced lol fast.

Bonneville by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2004-04-27 11:59 · Score: 1

>250 mph top speed is retarded because the only places you can really reach such a speed are on a banked oval track.

A banked oval wouldn't be the best spot, because of the downforce in the turns. You need to seriously beef up the suspension and then deal with the lift on the straights. I would personally recommend your nearest salt flat. Either that or I-80 between Battle Mountain and Winnemucca.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.

Key = Reliability by clbyjack81 · 2004-04-27 12:01 · Score: 1

A developer in my office has a Honda that cranks out well over 400hp from a 1.6L engine and with a different camshaft will hit 500.

Whole different ballpark here. You can make 1200bhp out of that 1.6L with enough money. The problem is that is will only last a few seconds. I'm willing to bet that the 400bhp your coworker is making won't last 100,000 miles since the rebuild before there some major things start breaking. The trick on a McLaren F1, Mercedes SLR, Carrera GT, or a Veyron is making 500+ bhp reliably. Very tricky (i.e. expensive) indeed.

--
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.

Re:Key = Reliability by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 12:44 · Score: 0

There is No Way that Overhyped, Overweight VW engine is going to last 100K miles. And Good money on it not lasting longer than Most 1000 HP Supra/Skylines do if driven similarly. Go ahead and flame me for being a "rice boy" but Only time will tell who is right.
Re:Key = Reliability by noewun · 2004-04-27 13:14 · Score: 3, Informative

You can make 1200bhp out of that 1.6L with enough money. The problem is that is will only last a few seconds.
In the late 80s/early 90s, BWM was gettng up to 1560 horsepower out of their Formula 1 engine, a 1.5 liter inline 4. 1560 was the maximum figure, but the engine regularly lasted for 2 hours producing 1000+ horsepower. De-tuned for endurance racing, they put out 600 horsepower for up to 24 hours at a time without a break.

--
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Re:Key = Reliability by Deanasc · 2004-04-27 14:36 · Score: 1

You can make 1200bhp out of that 1.6L with enough money. The problem is that is will only last a few seconds
This is so true. In highschool a friend added Nitrous to his Honda Civic. He got tons more horsepower out of it for about a month then he needed a new car.

--
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Re:Key = Reliability by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:54 · Score: 0

Yes, only time will tell. In time you'll realize that for the money you spent on your Best-Buy-worker status symbol could have bought you a BMW 540. In time you'll grow up and figure out that winning the traffic light drags doesn't get you anything.

Then you'll be cured.

BTW, that's why people laugh at you. Not because your car looks funny (and it does) or because you take yourself too seriously (and you do) - it's the stupidity of throwing so much money at a car that was ugly to begin with and only got worse as you "improved" it.
Re:Key = Reliability by clbyjack81 · 2004-04-27 17:32 · Score: 1

BWM was gettng up to 1560 horsepower out of their Formula 1 engine, a 1.5 liter inline 4.
You are absolutely right. Purebread racing engines can produce tremendous bhp/Liter ratios such as that BMW one. This thread, though, is refering to mass produced, sand cast block based engines, which just don't have the strength to be reliable at the aformentioned power levels.
That being said, thanks for your reference to BMWs amazing engine building talents! I myself drive a beautiful 1986 635CSi that I wouldn't trade for a new M5...it just is that wonderful. ;-)

--
Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
Re:Key = Reliability by noewun · 2004-04-27 18:55 · Score: 1

You are absolutely right. Purebread racing engines can produce tremendous bhp/Liter ratios such as that BMW one. This thread, though, is refering to mass produced, sand cast block based engines, which just don't have the strength to be reliable at the aformentioned power levels.

The engine blocks of the M12/13s (the F1 engines in question) were actually production blocks. BMW preferred blocks which had about 60,000 miles on them as properly "broken in". Aside from that, you're right. However, this thread gave me the ability to trot out a bit of trivia I've had running around my head for years.

--
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Re:Key = Reliability by cms108 · 2004-04-28 10:59 · Score: 1

come... admit it... you just watched chris barrie's massive engines on discovery... didn't you?

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by return0 · 2004-04-27 12:02 · Score: 1

1. General Aviation engines are air-cooled because they must operate in a wide range of temperatures. You may descend from 15,000 feet at -50F to 120F on the ground. I don't think there is an air-cooled wenkel.

2. Aircraft engines must operate without electricity. They use magnetos instead of distributor/electronic ignition. This is a safety/reliability feature. How much performance would your car engine put out with all mechanical ignition?

3. It is very difficult/time consuming to get an engine certified by the FAA.

4. The aircraft market is very small compared to cars. Shipping 50 airplanes would be considered a good year for many manufactures. Comibine this with #3 and you see why no one has done it.

Love that car - Here is another by Daath · 2004-04-27 12:09 · Score: 1

The Bugatti Veyron is so extremely cool :D Before that though, the fastest streetcar was the Koenigsegg CC, which had a top speed of 390 km/h (~240 mph) - They made a new model, the CCR, which is also pretty nice - These two cars are my favorite dream car :)
My favorite car dream site is the German Auto-Salon Singen - They have SO many cars (in stock too). New and used. Stock, prototype and vintage - They got it all. I must go down there and see the store some time, I'm told it's unbelievable :)
Oh, yeah, they got four Bugatti Veyron's in stock, price: EUR 1.086.206,00 (each)
*drool*

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.

Re:Love that car - Here is another by mihalis · 2004-04-27 12:25 · Score: 1

they got four Bugatti Veyron's in stock
I seriously doubt anyone has the Bugatti Veyron in stock. AFAIK It has not been released yet and is still a seriously troubled car. Maybe they have 4 accepted orders... not something you can drive.
A lot of the commentary I've read still gives the McLaren F1 props as ultimate supercar ever. i'd take a normally aspirated BMW 7 liter engine pushing out ~640 bhp any day over whatever the veyron eventually settles on.
I have a turbocharged car myself, and if I had the money to get the same outright performance and handling without having to use forced induction, i certainly would. Throttle response - yeah baby!
Re:Love that car - Here is another by Daath · 2004-04-27 12:34 · Score: 1

No, they do have it in stock, three 2003 models and one 2004 model, check it. You can even call them, or better travel there and go look at them :)

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Love that car - Here is another by mihalis · 2004-04-27 15:04 · Score: 1

Can't be production models :
Launch of Bugatti Veyron postponed to 2005
Deutsche Presse-Agentur - April 14, 2004
Motor Trend
Volkswagen has postponed the launch of the super sports car Bugatti EB 16.4 Veyron until next year amid technical problems, the news magazine Der Spiegel reports.
Check it out for yourself
Re:Love that car - Here is another by mihalis · 2004-04-27 15:17 · Score: 1

Here's another link from The Times (London, England) March 28, 2004 Veyron - curse of the Bugatti legend
This month came news that the car had been delayed again, despite assurances that deliveries would start in April this year. Bugatti now says none will be delivered until late 2005.
Re:Love that car - Here is another by Daath · 2004-04-27 18:41 · Score: 1

True, they do have a lot of prototype cars for sale. For the geeks who want stuff before it goes mainstream ;) hehehe

--
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.

Minor fault by moosesocks · 2004-04-27 12:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Okay. so this is all great and well...

But how do the breaks work?

--
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose

Re:Minor fault by drinkypoo · 2004-04-27 13:50 · Score: 1

Hopefully the breaks(sic) work better than you can spell. If they work like you spelled 'em, they'll fail before you even have a chance to depress the pedal.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Minor fault by Hektor_Troy · 2004-04-28 04:33 · Score: 1

Brakes?!? Where we're going, we don't need brakes!

--
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.

Re:VW *owns* Bugatti,Lamborghini, Audi, Bentley, S by nguyenhm · 2004-04-27 12:22 · Score: 2

Actually, they bought Rolls/Bentley, but later found out to their chagrin that the Rolls name was owned by Rolls Royce Aircraft Engines and only licensed to Rolls the automaker. RR Aircraft Engines then licensed the name to BMW, who now make the "Rolls" Phantom (though it is on a bespoke platform built in a new factory and not a rebodied 7 series).

better cars by hak1du · 2004-04-27 12:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Are there any cars better than this?"

Yeah, just about any car on the road, for most commonly used definitions of "better". For example, a Civic is cheaper to buy, cheaper to insure, cheaper to maintain, easier to drive, quieter, rides better, more comfortable, has more cargo space, and has better gas mileage.

Geeky Gas Mileage!! by gbulmash · 2004-04-27 12:28 · Score: 1

At top speed (250 mph), it burns 1.33 gallons of fuel per minute, giving it an mpg that is uncomfortably close to Pi.

- Greg

--
Start a happiness pandemic

Acronym Police by ari_j · 2004-04-27 12:30 · Score: 1

The 'I' in RAID stands for 'inexpensive', which is definitely what you wanted to say, anyhow. :)

Better Car? by dj_cel · 2004-04-27 12:30 · Score: 1

I say McLaren F1, or the new Mercedes Mclaren

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by not-my-real-name · 2004-04-27 12:30 · Score: 0

Most small airplanes have horizontally opposed, air-cooled, internal combustion engines from Lycoming or Continental that are little changed from what was used 50 years ago. Most are still even carburated, though Cessna is now using fuel injected engines in all its new airplanes. You also get to adjust the fuel-air mixture yourself. The spark advance is fixed and the spark plugs come from magnetos. Most (all?) engines also have a dual ignition system with two magnetos each driving a spark plug in each cylinder. One of the most important things that the engine not fail.

There are (finally) some intereting developments happening with diesel engines and with FADECs (Full-Authority Digital Engine Controllers) that will adjust the mixture and spark timing automatically.

The requirements for certifying a new engine are unbelievable thus the reluctance to develop new technology. Experimental/home-built aircraft are exempt and there have been quite a lot of auto engine conversions used here.

Fun fact: An airplane with more than 200 horse-power is considered to be "high-performance". There aren't many current aircraft piston engines that produce more than 450hp. Higher power usually comes from turbines.

--
un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED

1001 HP? by seanadams.com · 2004-04-27 12:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does it really get >1K HP except at top speed? I'd expect that on a dyno, or off the line, the performance is nowhere near that because you can't funnel air into the engine fast enough. For cars with lower horsepower ratings, the aerodynamics and speed of the car make less of a difference, right?

Re:1001 HP? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:47 · Score: 0

You don't understand much about HP. Maximum HP is developed at a given rpm, and gears mean that can occur at any speed. Have you ever heard the saying "nature abhors a vacuum"? An air intake in free air is not going to create one, thus limiting HP developed. even when attached to the intake of this beast.
Re:1001 HP? by zero_offset · 2004-04-27 23:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

Torque is the really interesting number. Horsepower is just a figure derived from torque (they're always equivalent at 5252 RPM due to the way HP is calculated). Torque and HP are not speed-related at all -- they're a description of how much power the engine (or engine plus drivetrain) makes at a given RPM.

You can think of turbos and superchargers as air compressors. This is how they feed enough air into the engine. (The common term is "forced induction", versus "naturally aspirated".) You can starve an engine for air (this is what happens when it runs rich, or on older engines when you engage the choke), at which point it simply won't run well, or perhaps at all. You can also introduce too much air (running lean) at which point you risk damaging the engine, since running lean is running hot. (Of course, you can also run it so lean there is insufficent fuel to run well, or at all.)

Aerodynamics is also unrelated to torque and horsepower. In terms of how much speed you can get out of a given vehicle, low drag aerodynamics would make MORE difference to a lower HP car since there is less drag to slow it down. My Viper makes 525 engine horsepower (driveline loss is about 12% so it makes about 462 HP at the wheels) and it has all the aerodynamic efficiency of a brick wall, so while it theoretically should be good for about 220 MPH (based on horsepower and gear ratios) it's actually only good for about 185 MPH in the real world, at which point it's just plowing too much air to continue to accelerate.

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

The Bugatti is Garbage by Constantin · 2004-04-27 12:32 · Score: 1

Fat, overweight, and only saved by an immense engine.

For the same money, have Dauer build your own 962-based Porsche supercar... literally a race car that has been tamed for the streets. Not only is the Dauer lighter, it also accelerates 0-60 in ~2.6 seconds... with a mere 3 liter, six cylinder engine, that happens to develop 700hp. See the latest issue of Excellence for an in-depth article.

Besides, just how safe would you feel in the 1.0 supercar release from a brand that used to be associated with Econoboxes?

Re:The Bugatti is Garbage by mrkurt · 2004-04-27 14:35 · Score: 1

Like it says on the Blue Book from my old "Dealer's Choice" game... "what's a Bugatti?"

--
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)

But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 l by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 12:38 · Score: 0

Easier? Yes. Smarter? No.

The thing is that off the line you have to accelerate that weight. The airfoils only really begin to provide down force when the vehicle has gained speed.

I'm seeing... by TheConfusedOne · 2004-04-27 12:42 · Score: 1

...a huge bump in PowerBall tickets being bought this week...

Hey, I've now replaced that Viper on my list of the "When I win the lottery..." cars.

--
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by drew · 2004-04-27 12:42 · Score: 1

The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . .

i believe there was a lot of interest in aviation use early on because their streamlined shape made them more appropriate aerodynamically for wing mounted engines, however they never saw widespread use, as the early generations of rotaries were plagued by fuel inefficiency and mechanical difficulties (as mentioned by other posts). still, the interest was there, and i wonder now that it seems some of these issues have been solved whether they might see a resurgence in aviation use of rotary engines.

--
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?

Free Marketing? by r00k123 · 2004-04-27 12:42 · Score: 1

From the article: "Everything about the engine is superlative." Soooo...who cut and pasted directly from the manufacturer website again?

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 12:49 · Score: 0

"If you're referring to General Aviation propellor aircraft, the answer is definately no."

But if you are talking military high-performance
piston engine aircraft engines up to 1945 or so,
he is absolutely correct. Go read Ricardo.

Ugh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 12:51 · Score: 0

Let's say that the Bugatti has a 15-gallon gas tank. So can anyone tell me why anyone would want a car which, running at top HP, would run out of gas in ten minutes?

Re:Ugh by Down8 · 2004-04-27 16:53 · Score: 1

Gas tank is probably over 20gal. And even on a track, no cars run at full-bore the entire time.

-bZj

--
.sig

How maths works by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 12:55 · Score: 0

Were they smoking crack when they did these calculations ?

But there's a problem: A 16-liter V-8 engine would be very large. And the pistons would be massive, so there would be no way it could turn at 6,000 rotations per minute (rpm). It might turn at a maximum of 2,000 rpm, meaning that you would need an immense 48-liter engine to generate 1,000 hp.

How did we suddenly get to a 48 litre engine ? 2000rpm * 3 = 6000rpm => litres * 3 = answer!!! WTF ?

Anyway, a Formula 1 car using a 3.0 litre normally aspirated (non-turbo) V10 engine can pull almost 900hp so an 8.0 litre V16 quad-turbo seems overkill to me.

Re:How maths works by NorthDude · 2004-04-27 13:44 · Score: 1

16 litres at 6000 rpm == 1000 hps 6000 rpm / 3 nbrLitres * 3 16 litres * 3 == 48 litres But I really don't know if it should be calculated this way...

--

I'd rather be sailing...
Re:How maths works by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 17:13 · Score: 0

Dude, I got their calculation but it's just bullshit. RPM bears only a passing relationship with hp/litre. It's not proportional.

16 litres @ 2000rpm != 333hp so there is no way that simply having 48 litres @ 2000rpm somehow magically gives you 1000hp.

The whole premise for the calculation is fatally flawed. Obviously the author of "How stuff works" also has only a casual relationship with a college education.

Perhaps "How to flip burgers" would be a better subject for their next article.
Re:How maths works by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 02:32 · Score: 0

Anyway, a Formula 1 car using a 3.0 litre normally aspirated (non-turbo) V10 engine can pull almost 900hp so an 8.0 litre V16 quad-turbo seems overkill to me.

With the new rules this year (engine must last the whole race weekend...4 training sessions, 2 qualifying sessions of one flying lap each, warmup and race) a modern formula one engine has a specified lifetime of 7-800km.
As you state, the better engines are around 900hp, or slightly above. To achieve that, the engine has to work at around 19000 rpm.

There are 2 major factors that make the F1 engines different from engines in production cars:

1) Surprise, surprise: Lifetime
2) Cost/technology

For a production car, you want a reliable engine. For a sportscar or supercar it would prolly be acceptable if an engine overhaul was required once in a while, but you'd still be looking at about 100x the expected lifetime, lots more for a "normal" engine in a "normal" car.

And then it's the cost. F1 engines are made with super-expensive technology. Special alloys that will allow the engine to withstand the high temperatures, high rpm and otherwise extreme conditions (maximum piston acceleration is in excess of 10000Gs).
And that's just for the mechanical construction, these engines require state of the art electronic systems (which are kept very, very secret).

The power output (or power/displacement ratio) can't be compared to a production car in any way.

Random fun facts about F1 engines:
The modern engines are about 200 pounds or lighter, yet they are load bearing in the construction of the chassis.

Back in the good old days of 1.5l turbo engines (and only 1 qualifying lap, and no rules about using the same engine in the race as in qualifying) the engines could put out about 1500hp in qualifying-setup. That's 1000hp/litre!
Re:How maths works by AnfieldSierra · 2004-04-28 12:36 · Score: 1

The calculations used on the web-site are just plain fiction. First they say a 16 liter engine would be too big to give 6000rpm and you could only get 2000rpm. So next you need a 48 liter V8.

OK, this would red-line at what...800rpm ? So then (using their maths) you would need an 120 liter engine for your 1000hp.

Ah but that would be even bigger and wouldn't rev faster than about 250rpm so you would need a 300 liter engine....and so on and so on

No wonder kids today don't "get" science if this is the sort of material being used for reference. Doh!

Can't afford.... by wpiman · 2004-04-27 13:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

OK, most /.ers cannot afford the Veyron,

Five years ago this would be the first place they would advertise. Oh my how times change.

Re:F1 has been getting over 900BHP out of 3 liters by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 13:05 · Score: 0

Or if you wanna go back a few years, 1500 out of 1.5 L V6s Back in the late '70s and '80s when turbos were not banned from F1.

It's the car equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever by noewun · 2004-04-27 13:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's shipping now!

No, wait. . . now!

No, really, now! And it will have a jillion horsepower and go a bazillion miles an hour!

As to the question of "are there better cars out there?" the answer is yes: any one of them you can actually drive.

--
I am a believer of momentum and curves.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Grishnakh · 2004-04-27 13:12 · Score: 1

2. Aircraft engines must operate without electricity. They use magnetos instead of distributor/electronic ignition. This is a safety/reliability feature. How much performance would your car engine put out with all mechanical ignition?

And why is this necessary? When was the last time the electronic ignition in your car went out? How many military planes don't have electronic controls on their engines (last time I checked, fighter jet engines were heavily computerized, along with the rest of the planes). This seems like a pretty silly requirement to me. As long as you used mil-spec electronic components (to handle the extreme temperatures at high altitudes), I don't see a problem.

"Rice boy" is extremely racist, yet accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 13:21 · Score: 0

If someone called Cadillac enthusiasts "watermelon boys" it would cause an uproar, but people just chuckle about this and give it no mind. It is racist.

Re:"Rice boy" is extremely racist, yet accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:00 · Score: 0

Yes, it is accepted. And "watermelon boys" just doesn't have the same ring to it. How about we just call them "pimps"? Oh wait, we already do. I guess your little piece of political correctness is redundant then!
Re:"Rice boy" is extremely racist, yet accepted? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:10 · Score: 0

Well if you look at the page, a Cadillac enthusiasts could be a rice boy too. Maybe you read into it too much, it's a reference to a group of people yes. But one race no. If your not 'down' with the lingo you might want to know what your talking about. Do you think all indian motorbikes are racist too? Direct quote from the rice boys page.... _______________________________________ Who/What Exactly Is a Rice-Boy? Rice-Boy is a stereotype. The typical Rice-Boy can be identified by his car, or rather what he does to it. Generally, Rice-Boy will start out with a car that was not meant to go fast (typically a Honda Civic), and attempt to "fix it up," usually consisting of aftermarket rims, lowering springs and an aftermarket exhaust system with a large exhaust tip. Most Rice-Boy cars (or "Rice Rockets") have the usual complement of stickers proudly displaying features that the car might or might not have, most notably, the Honda VTEC sticker from the later model Preludes, and the plaques from the later model Integras. Rice-Boys do not exclusively drive Japanese cars. There are quite a few fake Mustang '5.0's and Camaro Z28's out there, as well as quite a few strange looking Neons. _______________________________________

how often you wanna rebuild it? by caveat · 2004-04-27 13:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

drag engines are torn down after every day, if not every race - do you want to have to bring your car in for a total engine rebuild every 500 miles?

--

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley

Re:how often you wanna rebuild it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 13:56 · Score: 0

You are so far off base it isn't even funny. I have a 637rwhp naturally aspirated 427 big block that gets an oil change every 2500 miles, a tank of 87 each week, and a whole lotta time to burn rubber. It has given me far less grief than my friends' little imports and has costed less than them to boot.

You are suffering from the sheep effect where-in you believe that a high powered car, for instance, will almost instantaneously break down simply because they aren't made that way from the factory. Tool.

Brute Force Doesn't = Best by MSTCrow5429 · 2004-04-27 13:27 · Score: 1

"Are there any cars out there better than this?" Yes, it's called a Lexus. The most reliable car brand out there, holds its value over time, excellent fit and finish, good engines, good mileage, smooth as silk transmissions, and while of course expensive, as it's a luxury brand, not astronomically so. Even has cargo space. Only improvements I could suggest are AWD, hybrid engines, and lower octane engine requirements, especially as gas prices go up, up, up. You want to pay over $250 per pound for an impractical race car that has no real use in the real world, be my guest. However, most millionares and multi-millionares don't drive these things. They drive large American cars, usually under 30K. People who have money generally know enough not to waste it on toys, but use it to grow their personal worth. To have money, one first has to conserve and use it as efficiently as possible to get there, not blow it.

--
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997

Just get an F1 car by mnemoth_54 · 2004-04-27 13:36 · Score: 1

For that kind of money I'd rather have a real F1 car. With a 1.5 liter 4 cylinder that makes 1000bhp, or for qualifying laps more like 1500bhp. Not to mention tremendously better handling.

Thats just me though.

Re:Just get an F1 car by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 14:11 · Score: 0

I don't know what F1 you are watching but modern F1 car is 3.0L v12.
Re:Just get an F1 car by VeloDrax · 2004-04-27 14:25 · Score: 1

V-10, not V12.
Re:Just get an F1 car by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:13 · Score: 0

F1 cars are not street legal, and they don't look half as cool and are not 1/1000'th as luxurious as this car. Not to mention the bugatti is probably still cheaper than an F1 car.

Ps: to the other guys that replied, there are 4 cylinder F1 cars, the parent wasn't making that up.
Re:Just get an F1 car by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:38 · Score: 0

Can you point out in the FIA rule book that allows you to run a 4 cylinder car and what team ran one last weekend in Italy? I do not recall Ferrari, BMW, BAR, Mclaren, Suaber, shall I keep going?
Re:Just get an F1 car by Vegeta99 · 2004-04-27 19:17 · Score: 1

That's great and all, but you'd have to rebuild the motor every two blocks or so...
Re:Just get an F1 car by Steve+Cox · 2004-04-27 21:49 · Score: 1

Don't forget to mention that the engine only has to last one weekend and up until recently, the rules also allowed the engines to be changed between qualifying and race.

Steve.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by drinkypoo · 2004-04-27 13:42 · Score: 1

Apparently the RX-EVOLV engine which made it out of the RX-EVOLV concept car and into the RX-8 is not without its own problem, though apparently the (unrelated to this discussion) transmission is that car's big problem.

My general understanding is that rotary engines don't really have a reliability problem, they have an accelerated maintenance schedule. They can be counted on to fail more or less reliably every so many miles, or perhaps kWh would be a better measurement? As long as they are rebuilt regularly (which you have to do with aviation engines anyway) they should give quite reliable operation.

Now there WAS a highly unreliable RX-7, the last one with the twin turbos. From what I hear that system had more vacuum lines than a hoover factory, and a bunch of other complicated stuff crammed into a quite diminutive engine compartment, which led to no end of troubles.

Anyway the main seals wear out and have to be replaced, no shock there, it happens to normal reciprocating IC engines also. The apex seals do likewise, but when they wear down, the motor doesn't stop working, it just gets worse and worse compression, leading to more and more blowby and worse and worse emissions and economy.

Anyway this is all just what I've picked up over time. The people I've known who have owned RX-7s were not the highly technial type, at least not in the automotive realm. Though they are not my sole source of information, I could still have something wrong, so feel free to correct.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

McLaren F1 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 13:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

While the Bugatti is an amazing car, I must still admire the McLaren F1.

10 years ago this car was built. Its engine cranks out 627 BHP, from a NORMALLY ASPIRATED (eat that, quad turbo W16) V12. And its only 6.1 liters!

For a car more than a decade old to still be this good compared to todays technology is a feat.

Re:McLaren F1 by madsenj37 · 2004-04-27 19:30 · Score: 1

Dont forget that the driver is in the middle, not on the left or right.

--
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
Re:McLaren F1 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 20:46 · Score: 0

The Macca F1 was an engineering masterpiece. Even the stereo and speakers were specially designed to be light weight. There was no concession to budget, Gordon Murray wanted to engineer the best race car possible. It just happened that it was pretty good on track too!
Bugatti have created a beast of a car but have used power to overcome limitations in the design. In 20 years time the Mclaren F1 will be remembered as an automotive icon, I doubt that the Bugatti will
Re:McLaren F1 by Steve+Cox · 2004-04-27 21:46 · Score: 1

For those that want to see:
http://www.mclarencars.com/content/sections/mainfr /cars.htm

McLaren are now working with Mercedes to produce the SLR class. Its a mean looking car:
http://www.mercedes-benz.com/com/d/home/products/p assengercars/slrclass/index.html

Not everyone is particulary careful with their F1 though:
http://www.wreckedexotics.com/mclaren/

It's also got some nice Bugatti pics as well :)

Steve.

Fast, but not that fast by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 13:56 · Score: 0

A factory superbike is faster 0-60.

Re:Fast, but not that fast by softwave · 2004-04-27 21:56 · Score: 1

Superbikes have faster 0-60 times indeed... But the main problem with modern days superbikes is keeping the front wheel down (eg. nog wheelying).
While a Yamaha R1 for instance has incredible numbers on paper, you cannot fully whip open the throttle and expect the bike to rocket forwards (you're more than welcome to try it). Chances are you'll end up on your ass with a broken coccyx :)

Conundrum. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 13:59 · Score: 0

So, I've got this extra million bucks lying around and now I've got to make some tough decisions. Buy the Bugatti Veyron, or buy the Dual G5 Powermac. Decisions, decisions...

Re:250 MPH? by BurritoJ · 2004-04-27 14:01 · Score: 2, Informative

I have to take issue with one point you make here... 'Grip' or friction between the road surface and the tire is linearly related to the normal force or weight. Your other point regarding inertia increasing with mass is correct though and a good point.

Instead of a gas guzzler like this by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-27 14:07 · Score: 1

I'd like to see an electric or hybrid car with the same performance. Or better yet a 3 or 4 rotor rotary. Same HP, but 20-30 mpg. How you guys looked at the price of gas lately? Now THAT would be /. news.

Now when does Catsup Kerry's order come through?

In Detroit, "oh, I own all these SUVs"... on Earth Day "no, I don't own SUVs."

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

Re:Instead of a gas guzzler like this by Down8 · 2004-04-27 16:51 · Score: 1

1st: there is an electric car with outstanding performance - I believe it was on /. beofre, but I won't be doing the research for ya on this one.

2nd: since when do rotaries get insane mileage? Oh, right, they don't. They get mileage comparable to any normal internal combustion engine.

3rd: the Lexus RX330h will be a hybrid with AWD. Of course, it's an SUV, so I'm sure you'll be torn.

-bZj

--
.sig

or better yet by bigjnsa500 · 2004-04-27 14:12 · Score: 1

How would it perfom in a head on collison with an Expedition?

--
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.

Mass vs aero by ishmaelflood · 2004-04-27 14:20 · Score: 1

Ah, but at high speed mass gives you the downforce for free (apart from the rolling resistance, which is about 1.5%). The aerodynamic downforce will cost you about 20%, typically.

Therefore the heavy car with no downforce should a higher top speed than the light car with downforce. Working out which would accelerate more quickly at high speeds is not a no-brainer, unlike at low speeds.

OK, that's a nit pick, but the grandparent was making quite an interesting point as well.

Re:Mass vs aero by spike+hay · 2004-04-27 17:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Probably you should go talk to the people that build indy cars about that. The spoilers that they have are just inverted airfoils. In fact, travelling at 400 or so MPH, they would be capable of holding the indy car upside down on a ceiling.

--
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Re:Mass vs aero by bryan_chow · 2004-04-27 18:51 · Score: 1

Actually Indy and F1 cars only need to travel at about 200mph for the downforce to be > weight of the car, and travel upside down.
Re:Mass vs aero by jweatherley · 2004-04-27 19:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't know about Indy cars but F1 cars only need to be doing ~100mph to stick to the ceiling.

--

--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
Re:Mass vs aero by zero_offset · 2004-04-27 23:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Indy cars don't need anything even remotely approaching 400 MPH to generate that kind of downforce. The Ferrari 360 Modena (barely even an exotic) makes sufficient downforce to support it's own weight at about 150 MPH due to its elaborately engineered undertray. However, the all-time downforce winner is the Toyota Eagle MKIII GTP car from the late 80's (or maybe early 90's, I forget) which had configurations that generated downforce in excess of 11,000 pounds at 200 MPH (which it could attain in places like the Mulsanne straight at Le Mans).

--
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Re:Mass vs aero by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-28 02:30 · Score: 1

In the early 1970s one of the Chaparrals (the 2J, IIRC) had a separate engine and fan to generate downforce, even standing still. It had bugs that weren't worked out before it was banned because it was too effective.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

That wouldn't do it by ishmaelflood · 2004-04-27 14:27 · Score: 1

Wouldn't give you 5g. Your tyres probably saturate at probably 2g, and locked wheels are even worse. F1 get several g because they use aero to clamp the car to the road, and tyres that do not saturate so quickly as load increases. Therefore the MASS can be accelerated by a big FORCE without needing the WEIGHT to hold the car down to generate the FORCE. Caps for emphasis, not shouting.

Radio waves? Bah! by Jonathan+Hamilton · 2004-04-27 14:39 · Score: 0

Radio waves are nice and all,
but they got nothing on a helicopter.

(Yes I know the helicopter is worthless without
a radio) but you get my point.

You forgot yaw stability by ishmaelflood · 2004-04-27 14:43 · Score: 1

"Top speed is only limited by three things: drag, power, and gearing." and yaw stability.

As the car accelerates the centre of lateral drag moves forward. This tends to make the car unstable in yaw as speed increases. If you add a fin at the back then it will increase the speed at which it occurs, but this adds drag.

As the car accelerates the understeer/oversteer curve also tends to move towards oversteer (ref Gillespie or Milliken and Milliken) this also tends to flip the car sideways. This can be got around by tuning the steering to give terminal understeer, but this is not a very popular choice with drivers.

Re:You forgot yaw stability by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-28 04:13 · Score: 1

Some cars get too light on the front end at high speeds. Imagine a burst of wind causing a back flip at 170 mph.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Bugatti simulator by rwa2 · 2004-04-27 14:44 · Score: 1

If you want to try driving one on your PC, there's a mod for Grand Theft Auto Vice City that includes it: Ultimate Vice City

Unfortunately, GTA III / VC seems to have the most accurate physics of any driving simulator I've played with, and I've gone through a lot. Kinda sad, since they purposefully exaggerate towards comical movie physics a lot.

I actually had no idea the Ultimate Mod's Bugatti was a real car until reading about it just now... I thought that the really insanely fast car in the mod was just rice'd up and given artificially high stats!

Re:Bugatti simulator by kingofnopants · 2004-04-27 15:15 · Score: 1

Gran Turismo is a much better driving simulator, especially when it comes to car physics. Maybe the next version will have this car.

--
Disco Stu was talkin' to you.
Re:Bugatti simulator by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:32 · Score: 0

You also might want to try Colin McRae Rally 4.

Re:Mass vs aero /slight rethink/ by ishmaelflood · 2004-04-27 14:51 · Score: 1

Ooo er, it all depends why you want the downforce. At very high speeds the problem is keeping the car on the road going in a straight line. For this, ballast is fine. However if you want to brake, or turn, then the mass is counterproductive.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by return0 · 2004-04-27 15:03 · Score: 1

A GA airplane has one alternator and a small battery. You can have any number of faults with the electrical system: failed alternator, broken alternator belt, short in system. Commercial and military aircraft will have multiple redundancies to cover this: multiple power sources with seperate electrical systems.The problem for GA is weight and complexity (==cost).

The easiest way around this is a non-electronic engine. Simple, proven and light weight considering the alternatives. Besides, when was the last time your car was struck by lightning?

A Million Bucks!? by SillySnake · 2004-04-27 15:06 · Score: 1

... And they can't buy a fast webhost?

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Grishnakh · 2004-04-27 15:13 · Score: 1

Commercial and military aircraft will have multiple redundancies to cover this: multiple power sources with seperate electrical systems.The problem for GA is weight and complexity (==cost).

The easiest way around this is a non-electronic engine. Simple, proven and light weight considering the alternatives. Besides, when was the last time your car was struck by lightning?

Sounds like a cop-out to me, given current technology. Considering that one of these primitive engines from Lycoming or Continental costs upwards of $30k, I see no reason why they couldn't include a few redundant systems for that price. It's not like they have to design new electronic systems from scratch: they could easily use inexpensive off-the-shelf parts from the automotive sector and adapt them to their purposes.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:19 · Score: 0

for a Cesnsa 152 (2 seater) more like 110mph @ 1500rpm at least, not factoring wind.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by return0 · 2004-04-27 15:34 · Score: 1

I'm a private pilot and I appreciate the fact that barring a mechanical meltdown with the engine, it will keep running if fed with fuel. I'd like some high-tech in my aircraft too, but it comes at a price. Take a look at this panel:

Cirrus

It's a very nice aircraft with all the extras, and it costs $350,000+ And it has magnetos on the engine. Go figure.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Slayback · 2004-04-27 15:37 · Score: 1

Sure they have. There's a whole history of rotaries being used in aircraft.

1.33 gallons of gas per minute by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 15:38 · Score: 0

Oh boy. Gotta send more American kids to die in gas war for that sucker.

This car is a disgrace.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Grishnakh · 2004-04-27 16:05 · Score: 1

Whoopee. They can put advanced avionics in these planes because they're not so tightly regulated by the FAA. It's pretty easy to put various electronics in the cockpit. The reason it still comes with a stone-age engine with magnetos is because either 1) it's nearly impossible to get the FAA to certify a more modern engine, or 2) the engine manufacturers are too cheap/lazy to upgrade to newer technology and get it certified.

There's loads of private pilots flying with electronic ignitions, ECUs, etc. Of course, their planes are all "experimental", because that's the only way you're allowed to use technology less than 50 years old in a plane in this country thanks to the FAA and lawyers.

It's come to this by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:10 · Score: 0

Can you imagine a beowulf cluster of these w16 engines?

Needs more rice by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:14 · Score: 0

All they really needed was a bunch of "Type-R" stickers. They're usually good for an extra 50 horse power each!

Overrated by santos_douglas · 2004-04-27 16:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Despite lacking the 'amazing' performance specs, for my money the Toyota Prius is by far the most advanced car on the road. It's power distribution and energy recovery seems like a much bigger innovation.

Let's see, the Veyron is cool and fast, but everything in the car is pretty common and didn't require any special innovation to achieve. The engine? Just two corporate VW DOHC V8s bolted together. And turbos are not exactly new technology, and putting 4 of them in one place doesn't get you any farther. Wow - 4 valves per cyclinder, did NASA design this monster!?! Ohhhh, dry sump lubication, fairly rare due to cost on production vehicles, but in use for plenty long. Continuously variable cam timing, I believe Honda was putting this on Civics about 20 years ago. And obviously seven gears are seven times more advanced than four gears. Dual clutch systems were invented decades ago, just never worked so well due to reliability. F1 style paddle shifting - Ferrari had it first. All wheeel drive - Jeep perhaps? Many high end cars have unique tires, all that means is they're expensive, not innovative, and have dimensions too ridiculous for the manufacturers to build in volume. Carbon fiber chasis also common on several high enders.

The Veyron is just a really expensive combination of all the top technologies available in the market at the moment, I see nothing new here. Of course, that could just be the envy talking.

Re:Overrated by mihalis · 2004-04-28 02:45 · Score: 1

The engine? Just two corporate VW DOHC V8s bolted together.
No, it's more like two W8s bolted together length-wise.
Otherwise, I agree. Audi is about to launch dual-clutch systems in their lowly TT Coupe!
The engine in the Bugatti is not that impressive to me. It has low specific output (horsepower/litre) and is not that far ahead of cars I could buy just down the street at the mercedes dealer or the audi dealer, such as the AMG CL65 or RS6. Ferrari sells a car that gets 118 bhp/liter normally aspirated. Now that's a new benchmark.. any of the top manufacturers can build a giant engine, strap a flock of turbochargers to it and get headline grabbing otuput figures. I just don't see the point.
Every bit of extra torque and power it can deploy is successfully resisted by the huge mass of the car, such that it's not the fastest car in the world, nor is it the most luxurious, It's, perhaps the most luxurious supercar, or some such silly thing. Maybe it's the best car to pose at Monaco in!

Breaks? by slashhax0r · 2004-04-27 16:25 · Score: 0

Well. basically at 250 you hit the brake. the car spins, you hit a wall and break your face...

Re:250 MPH? by BeerSlurpy · 2004-04-27 16:25 · Score: 1

In theory yes, in practice no.

The tire is not a perfect cylinder, nor is it solid. It is usually deformed to one degree or another. This is especially true with slicks that rely on air pressure to maintain sidewall rigidity. A heavier car will require more air pressure to maintain the appropriate shape in a corner (too much deformation and the tire rolls over onto the sidewall or rim, which have no grip). This has the unfortunate side effect of giving it less grip since it now has a smaller contact patch and reduced flexibility between the rim and the contact patch.

The tire is not parallel to the road (camber) nor is it rotating in a direction parallel to the direction of the car (toe). When turning, the front wheels will gain additional camber as the wheel is turned. All of these details are designed to sacrifice straight line grip for cornering grip. All of these angles will affect the coefficient of friction of the tire.

The real proof that increased downforce kills off CF is weight transfer during cornering. The more weight that transfers from one side of the car to the other, the more download is put on the outside tires. However, since the CF keeps decreasing, the increase in grip on the outside is less than the decrease on the inside. And the car loses grip. This is also why stiffening the front shocks of my miata allowed me to brake harder- less weight was transferred off the rear wheels and onto the front, increasing the overall grip of the car. See, not linear downforce vs grip.

If you really care about this stuff in anal retentive detail (as I obviously do), I suggest the "Going Faster" book that skip barber sells. Very good racing technique book that also has details on suspension and tire stuff. That and a couple of long track days really helped my driving a lot.

eh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 16:26 · Score: 0

I still like my McLaren F1, Pagani Zonda, and just about every Lamborghini produced. Ferrari can lick my balls.

Article in error re: F1 cars by JakiChan · 2004-04-27 16:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Just for the record, the article claims that F1 cars use a ground effect like the Bugatti. These days, actually, F1 has a few regulations to prevent that. The car bottom is flat and has a wood plank underneath that is 10mm +/- 1mm. If the plank is less than 9mm at the end of the race then the car is judged to have been riding too low.

See FIA 2004 Formula One Technical Regulations sections 13.2 and 13.3 for details.

--
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."

Mazda Miata by b0s0z0ku · 2004-04-27 16:36 · Score: 1

The article says that the Veyron weighs 4300lb - a car that heavy can be fast, but it's seldom much fun to drive. For $25,000, I'd get a newer Mazda Miata that weighs half that, do some mods to the suspension, and drive it for 250,000 miles (autocrossing it occasionally). The Miata might not have the raw top speed or acceleration, but it can corner with the best of them, and lateral g's are where the fun's at anyway. And, I'll get 30-35 mpg on the freeway while having fun :-p

The other $975,000? I'd use it for my presidential campaign...

-b.

I always wondered if there were death traps in F1 by RallyNick · 2004-04-27 16:49 · Score: 1

[kinda off-topic but still]

Think about this: air resistance normally goes up with the square of your speed due to turbulence (for cars it really picks up around 60mph, which is why the old highway speed limit was set at 55mph). Now if the downforce on an F1 car went up with the square of vehicle speed (and I think it does) you could engineer a turn so that if you tried driving around it at low speeds you'd make it ok, then at a certain medium speed you'd lose traction because centrifugal force exceeds friction, but then at much higher speeds you could have the downforce kick in and give you enough grip to make it around the corner again. That's because centrifugal force is liner to your speed, but friction depends on downforce wich goes up with the square of speed.

So by "death trap" I meant a turn that you could take at say 200mph or more, or below 150mph, but any speed between 150mph and 200mph would make you lose control. Any such thing you've heard of, or am I making no sense?

A press release beat a real article? by Down8 · 2004-04-27 16:58 · Score: 1

I submitted this article, from PopSci, 2 days ago: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/auto/article/0,12543, 358540,00.html

It has actaul programing relevance, and it was rejected. But this Press Release, on a car that hasn't been able to hit it's production date for over a year, is /. worthy?

Oh well, poor me, I guess.

-bZj

--
.sig

Time to jump on the bandwagon... by berniecase · 2004-04-27 17:11 · Score: 0

I mean, sure, the Veyron is a beautiful car, but who cares about beauty when you can ride in style!

Case in point, my 1975 AMC Pacer is oozing style. With its 258 cubic inch 6-cylinder beast of burden under the hood, this baby really lets the fellas and the ladies know what's what.

Who says you need seven gears? Ha! I only need the three that my Pacer has. No need for overdrive here... ya see, back in the day, cars didn't need it - the speed limit was still 55. Ahhhs yeah.

I could go on, but let's be real here. The Pacer is where it's at. There's no doubting it.

Practical. Popular. Par Excellence. Pacer.

Re:Time to jump on the bandwagon... by bhima · 2004-04-27 20:59 · Score: 1

I've seen one with a 409ci V8 in it, very strange.

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:Time to jump on the bandwagon... by notbob · 2004-04-30 01:41 · Score: 0

In Cincinnati, OH we still have 55mph speed limits on a good portion of the highway... not that anyone pays attention to them but they're there.

Cadillac has a 1000hp car, too. by Animats · 2004-04-27 17:30 · Score: 1

For that matter, Cadillac has a "1000 horsepower car." No way could it deliver that much power through the wheels, though.

Re:Cadillac has a 1000hp car, too. by Hektor_Troy · 2004-04-28 04:25 · Score: 1

That's not a production-car.

Hint: It's in the "concept car" section.

--
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Re:Cadillac has a 1000hp car, too. by Animats · 2004-04-28 17:40 · Score: 1

There's a prototype of the Cadillac Sixteen. The Veyron is also a prototype. In production next year, maybe.

Fun overpowered cars by Animats · 2004-04-27 17:34 · Score: 1

I've driven a Sunbeam Tiger, one of the classic overpowered cars. This was a conversion of a Sunbeam Alpine by Caroll Shelby, the originator of the Shelby Cobra. He put a Ford 4.2 liter V8 into a car that originally had a 4-cylinder 1.7 liter engine.

Fun. If you started off in third, you didn't notice any problem.

Sexy car by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 17:35 · Score: 0

This car makes me horny!

Uhhh... drops are free fall? by DoubleReed · 2004-04-27 17:42 · Score: 1

The G's are at the base of the drop when you start to go back up.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:00 · Score: 0

My uncle's a rocket scientist with Honeywell--he's looking into making an airplane of his own, using a turbocharged version of the rx-8's engine.

Kinda Late on This by ShishCoBob · 2004-04-27 18:04 · Score: 1

Well about two years late on posting this, but there's a problem with talking about the excessive amounts of power and so forth. It was supposed to be out this year, then delayed. VW wanted to refine it even more and more and more and more... you get the point. Now they have lowered the power output expectations in this refinement process. This is the early 90s all over again when it comes to the car market. We've got every company coming out with some type of supercar. The market is basically being flooded more and more everyday. It seems to be surviving so far but it's going to pop soon, just like in the early 90s. My guess is that when the Bugatti comes out it's going to be kind of like the Jaguar XJ220. It was suppose to be a V12 with AWD. They couldn't do it and just gave the TT V6 with RWD. What you see now, if VW keeps it up, will be nothing like what we finally see coming out for production.

--
http://www.maximum-cars.com - My little hobbie.

Got your 1000hp+ SUV right here! by MachDelta · 2004-04-27 18:07 · Score: 2, Funny

Yup. Its called a 797. Caterpillar 797.
V24 diesel engine, with four turbos. Three thousand, four hundred ponies. Yeah, you heard me: 3400hp.
Seven forward gears. 42 inch brakes. Can haul up to 380 tons of your kids crap.
Course, it only does like 42mph (loaded) while getting 0.3 mpg. Yes, at 47 feet long and 23 feet tall, its kind of hard to park. But you can rest assured that your 13 foot tires are bigger than your neighbours' Escalade! Or his entire Chevvy for that matter.

Yours for only 3.4 million! (Some assembly required).

(PS: All joking aside, i've seen one of these beasts up close, and they're just insane. The pictures don't even do it justice.)

Re:Got your 1000hp+ SUV right here! by Keith+McClary · 2004-04-27 19:02 · Score: 1

This one has room for your soccer team and can go offroad. Not 1000 hp, but you could probably fit in a Bugatti engine if you wanted to soup it up.
Re:Got your 1000hp+ SUV right here! by 74nova · 2004-04-28 02:04 · Score: 1

im having trouble feelin the Sport in SUV with that one, unless you mean crushing civics with aluminum wings... huh...

--
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy

Error in the article by Skynyrd · 2004-04-27 18:14 · Score: 1

The article claims This computer-controlled system is identical to the sort of system found in a Formula 1 car or a Champ car. There is no clutch pedal or shift lever for the driver to operate -- the computer controls the clutch disks as well as the actual shifting. The computer is able to shift gears in 0.2 seconds.

Champ cars don't use a clutchless system; they use a sequential gearbox, like a motorcycle. They don't have to use a clutch except to start rolling, but there are three pedals on the floor, and a shift lever (although it moves back and forth, rather than in an H pattern).

There is no computer on that clutch, and it's cheating if you do.

$160 dollars an hour! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:14 · Score: 0

Wow, the hummer has been dethroned. This car costs $160 dollars an hour to drive. That's $400 dollars an hour if you want to open it up on the Autobahn in Germany where the government doesn't heavily subsidize oil with tax dollars. You would need a bon fire to burn dollar bills that fast! I can only imagine what it would cost to take this thing for a spin circa 2010 after global oil production peaks.

What better way for an energy baron to support his product than to buy a lion's share of it?

Welcome to the global closed-loop economy.

-Dash

design was stolen from Tatra by gradedcheese · 2004-04-27 18:31 · Score: 0

Porsche essentially copied the streamlined Tatra design (Tatra was/is a Checoslovakian (sp?) car maker). Tatras are very interesting cars which influenced a lot of designs but the Beetle was a total ripoff. So much that VW was fined for doing that eventually.

I think tatra now only builds large commercial trucks but they did some awesome cars, like the T603 (built for communist party bosses). Aluminum aircooled rear mounted V8 with breakerless ignition in around '57.

Thrust SSC by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 18:43 · Score: 0

The Thrust SSC is a way better "car" than that thing. The SSC can go over 700 miles per hour and can even handle the shockwave produced when going supersonic without flipping over. Of course, the two fighter jet engines used to power it consume lots of fuel. An even better option would be a solid fuel rocket motor, but once you start a solid rocket you can't shut it down.

Re:Thrust SSC by Steve+Cox · 2004-04-27 21:54 · Score: 1

> The Thrust SSC is a way better "car" than that thing

Just waiting for the production version of that car so I can take it for a drive around town....

Steve.

Variable Cylinders by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 19:12 · Score: 0

It just so happens that later this year Honda will be releasing a hybrid V6 Accord that will shut down 3 cylinders to increase fuel economy. The so-called VCM technology will also be used on a model to be announced later this year as well.

Go to http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2003?mid=20040105271 29&mime=asc for slightly more details, along with some info about next year's fuel cell car.

aQazaQa

Re:Fastest car? Hardly by madsenj37 · 2004-04-27 19:19 · Score: 1

Production car is implied when they say fastest car.

--
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.

Re:Automotive Vaporware -aircooling by dario_moreno · 2004-04-27 20:11 · Score: 1

I have read somewhere that aircooling in VWs (and hence in PorSches up to 1996) is related to Hitler's wish to produce a car able to "sleep outside" (for workers not able to afford a garage) and start even during the worst German winters. Watercooling technology of the time was not able to keep up with this. Everybody recognizes that Hitler had "visions", could lead incredible brainstorming sessions, and get certain people to give more than the best of themselves ; this is what occured to Porsche during a few nights with him. Fortunately for us, AH could also be spectacularly wrong, and due to is past brilliances, noone dared to contradict him !

Speaking of tanks, the French 8-wheeled light Panhard tank of the fifties had a low lying, flat ten, gasoline engine (sounds familiar ?) whose design was taken from Porsche as war repairs (along with the ATAR turboreactor powering the Mirages)

--
Google passes Turing test : see my journal

Bugatti museum by evilandi · 2004-04-27 20:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's a Bugatti Museum just over the field from my house (Gloucestershire, UK [Map]). The site is also home to the impressive Prescott Speed Hillclimb which is open to the public- you can even enter the time trial in your own car, although I find it more fun to watch the vintage cars, including old Bugattis, race up the hill.

--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com

"Are there any cars out there better than this?" by RageEX · 2004-04-27 20:40 · Score: 1

Yeah:

http://www.barchetta.cc/All.Ferraris/ferrari.by. se rial.number.summary/index.html
http://www.barchet ta.cc/english/All.Maserati/Summa ry/Maseratis.Overview.htm

Americans might want to try a Triumph instead by Moderation+abuser · 2004-04-27 20:54 · Score: 2, Informative

The Rocket III to be specific.

http://www.triumph.co.uk/site/bikes/page.cfm?Bik eI D=83

2.2l engine in a motorcycle, yes, it is insane, but it accelerates faster than a sportsbike. To get the best acceleration out of it you need to be carrying a pillion, though on thinking about it maybe that wouldn't be necessary in the US.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

Re:VVTL by bbodien · 2004-04-27 20:59 · Score: 2, Informative

The next big thing in fuel efficiency for conventional piston engines is the variable timing and lift technology now available in BMW's 4.5liter V8 and soon to come form other manufacturers.

Toyota have been putting their variable valve timing and lift engines in several of their lines for over four years now. Branded as VVTL-i (i standing for intelligence), they're fitted in MR2s, Celicas, Corrolas and all sorts.

More info here

Ford has built cars in Germany since 1923 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 21:05 · Score: 0

The parent writes "Hitler had read much of Henry Ford's success", but I bet he had also heard that Ford had a factory in Cologne, and seen the cars on the road. There were cars in Germany before VW.

Also, Germans were stomping the crap out of all comers in the formula one races in the thirties - Hilter wasn't the only car enthusiast around.

It wasn't until after the war that the VWs came to dominate the German market. But that was because when the Anglo-American bombing stopped, they got back on their feet a little quicker than the competition. Since Hitler backed VW, the myth arose the he somehow invented the German car industry.

The truth is he didn't have anything to do with it. Daimler and Benz invented the industry in the late 19th century - not to mention Diesel and Otto, who invented the two types of internal combustion engines used today.

In fact contrary to popular belief in America, Hitler didn't do shit for Germany. He was dumb as rocks and ruined the place, not least by killing or chasing off anyone with any brains. He didn't "mastermind" anything. Duh.

It's only 750 kiloWatts by Moderation+abuser · 2004-04-27 21:05 · Score: 1

Come back and talk when we are talking megaWatts. I want the equivalent of a *power station* under the bonnet.

--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.

koenigsegg by LosManos · 2004-04-27 21:13 · Score: 1

hi.

Good looking too: The Koenigsegg

/OF

OnStar by tacocat · 2004-04-27 22:29 · Score: 1

Does it come with OnStar?
Might be handy if you get into one of those 250 mph accidents on a dark road in the country.

They build W engines for motorcycles too by stone22 · 2004-04-27 22:45 · Score: 1

Fuelings W3 engine . The sort of thing i would like on my buell

Re: Are there any cars out there better than this? by zero_offset · 2004-04-27 23:08 · Score: 1

Unless you're talking about a 911 GT2 or a race-prepped GT3, any street-driven Viper will mop the floor with a 911. And if you're talking GT2 or GT3, a more apt comparison is a Viper Competition Coupe, which again will eat the Porsche's lunch.

That being said, if 911's weren't so overpriced, I'd still buy one for my wife.

--

Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by RESPAWN · 2004-04-27 23:25 · Score: 1

"The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . ."

Actually, yes. I know a few people who specialize in rotary engines -- building them, modifying them, tuning them, etc. Anyway one day one of hem was talking about this mailing list that he's on that consists of people using rotary engines in homebuilt airplanes. Unfortunately, I don't have any links as this was entirely a word of mouth discussion at the shop. I also don't think the engine has been used in any commercial planes. It was, however, interesting to hear about some of the things the airplane people did differently to make the engine more reliable.

--

If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

sheesh by RMH101 · 2004-04-27 23:48 · Score: 2, Informative

not to mention the 1cm of ground clearance on a modern F1 car and no conventional suspension. also radiators that need to be moving at high speed to avoid overheating. an F1 car on an autocross track would not work, just as an autocross car on an F1 track wouldn't.

Re:VVTL by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-27 23:50 · Score: 0

Toyota have been putting

Hi, just wondering what factors caused you to choose the corporate plural form. It is becoming popular here and I am trying to understand why.

Thanks for any light you can shed on the subject.

Smart by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 00:04 · Score: 0

I'd rather have a Smart...

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by RESPAWN · 2004-04-28 00:06 · Score: 1

Really, most of the dependability issues stemmed from people not properly maintaing the car. People tried to treat the car as a standard piston engine car, never checking the oil (the car does burn some oil as lubrication for the combustion chambers), using the cheapest damn gasoline they could find, and most commonly, not paying attention to the cooling; you overheat the engine once, and it's probably dead due to how thin the water jacket is on the engine. The rotary engine just needs a little more attention than standard piston engines, and most people didn't understand that.

The engine can be reliable, however with the right care.

--

If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

Most Fuel Efficient by Mr_Blank · 2004-04-28 00:08 · Score: 1

At the other end of the spectrum in beauty, power, and fuel economy is the Lupo 3L TDI. This plucky little Volkswagen has entered the record books for fuel economy of 101.6 mpg. Click the link for record setting details.

The Bugatti Veyron sure is beautiful and gets my adrenaline pumping. The Lupo is a economically smart car that makes a lot of sense for day-to-day living. Of course, neither is available where I live. The descision for me is between a Mazda Rx-8 and a Toyota Prius. Its like I have a little angle on one shoulder and a little devil on the other... What to do?

This space for rent.

Bah by MassD · 2004-04-28 00:56 · Score: 1

250 isn't a hard number to hit. The Winston Cup cars were running close to 230 at Talladega and Daytona before they slapped restrictor plates on them. The Champ Cars were touching 250 at Indy before they instituted pop-off valves on the turbos.

On a large, banked oval, any car with enough horsepower to overcome drag will hit that speed. A modified Corvette pushed past 250, and the McLaren F1 was GEARING LIMITED at around 240 or so.

Toyota Prius (was Re:Most Fuel Efficient) by erturs · 2004-04-28 00:58 · Score: 1

The descision for me is between a Mazda Rx-8 and a Toyota Prius. Its like I have a little angle on one shoulder and a little devil on the other... What to do?

Go for the Prius. IMHO, it's the ideal car for a geek -- chock full of computers and cool features (I like the smart keyless entry -- just walk up to it and open the door, no fumbling for keys). Driving one is a lot like playing a video game. The environmentally friendly features and low gas mileage are really just a bonus :-).

No actual photos? by slcdb · 2004-04-28 01:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

It would be nice if a car like this actually existed. Too bad they don't mention that minor detail anywhere in the article.

Did anyone else notice that there are no real photos of this car? Any pics I could find were all just nice computer-generated renderings. My advice: don't place your order for this car just yet.

--
Despite what EULAs say, most software is sold, not licensed.

wicked wheelies by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 01:59 · Score: 0

for example

Lotec Sirius by cra · 2004-04-28 01:59 · Score: 1

The Lotec Sirius isn't far behind, although it's not in production yet. You can read about it here. And it looks great, too. :-)

--
This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for higher security.

Meh by Paulrothrock · 2004-04-28 02:07 · Score: 1

As a computer geek, I'd rather get a Prius and spend the savings on a fabulous computer-enabled home. But that's me.

--
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.

Well,I built one once! by flyneye · 2004-04-28 02:30 · Score: 0

Ya,buddy!
'79 trans am.403 olds.nicely lobed cam.biggest damn carb i could fit under the hood and a fuel pump you coulda used for a sump pump.and a methanol to gas mix of 1:30.Local cops clocked me at 233(actually out of their curiosity at my claims)but i still had more pedal.tires become important at over 160.you dont want any flat spots!also realize that they arent rated for those speeds.
you want a speedy highway car?'79 TA was prolly the last of the hotrods detroit ever made.i dont reccomend any f-body as a drag car as they are unibody and it would suck to reallign everytime you got a good start off the line.However they make great highway cars and yeah i usta run it balls out on highways out in the sticks.things ya do in yer 20s!

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!

Re:250 MPH? by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-28 03:01 · Score: 1

The force tangential to the road is nearly linearly proportional to the force perpendicular to the road. Calling it logarithmic is ridiculous, that would imply enormous traction at low loads. At high forces the linear approximation breaks down as the tread squirms and the local forces exceed the strength of the tread material. This is worsened when the tire is not parallel to the road; the failure of parallelism is caused by poor suspension geometry which in turn is ameliorated by stiff springs and shocks.

Tread squirm is reduced by (among other things) by having shallow treads (or none), as is common in racing tires. It is reduced by increasing tire inflation pressure, which is part of the reason that having low pressure in the rear tires increases the risk of a spinout.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:Automotive Vaporware -aircooling by notbob · 2004-04-28 03:02 · Score: 0

Air cooled Porsche's were available to 1998 not 1996.

1996 was introduction of varioram intake though with variable intake.

Re:Automotive Vaporware -aircooling by dario_moreno · 2004-04-28 03:08 · Score: 1

You are right.

what I had in mind was the introduction of the Boxster which prefigured the Porsche 996, the name of which isn't a coincidence.

--
Google passes Turing test : see my journal

Re:I always wondered if there were death traps in by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-28 03:09 · Score: 1

Sorry. The centifugal force is proportional to the square of the speed divided by the radius of the turn.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:Automotive Vaporware -aircooling by notbob · 2004-04-28 03:27 · Score: 0

The boxster is a management dream of a money maker...

Take your great car name, make a dumbed down version which you sell for less but make it back up on the maintenance / parts as the idiot yuppies who buy boxers don't generally do their own maintenance.

The boxster is a cute yuppie mobile... but then again so is the new vw bettle's with iPods.

1998 or earlier Porsche 911 is truly beautiful.

My fav is the 993 GT2 or the 993 Twin Turbo, most reliable and endurable air-cooled porsche's ever, just your pick of rwd or awd.

The BMW M3 rocks but that brand is going downhill, E46 = bloat machines, E36 M3 with an E46 M3 is the sweet spot.

Why weren't they doing this ages ago? by ChrisMaple · 2004-04-28 03:50 · Score: 1

Big battery banks, big electric motors/generators are expensive. Sophisticated, reliable, cheap controllers are fairly recent.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 04:48 · Score: 0

Yeah, they have all these redundancies, but many of these planes can fly even if you lose ALL electrical power. You really, really don't want to do this, but if the alternative is crashing...

Take the engine on one jet I know. The fuel valve (what the throttle controls on a jet engine) has dual redundant electronic controllers. Each of which contains a matched pair of computers that get the same inputs. The outputs are compared, and if they disagree, the controller shuts down and switches to the other unit. Alarms in the cockpit and all that. Time to land before the other one fails.

And, if BOTH controllers fail, you have a backup mechanical link straight to the fuel valve. This is NOT how you want to fly a jet airplane, but if all else fails, and you are really careful, you can still land it in one piece.

WTF is a pillion? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-04-28 06:33 · Score: 0

for us non-brits ;-)

Then again... by KnarfO · 2004-04-28 06:36 · Score: 1

... at 250mph, who's going to get a good description of what just whizzed by?

--

"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams

VAG by sad_ · 2004-04-28 06:39 · Score: 1

I'm such a VAG (VolksWagen Audi Group) fanboy. I think everything they do is the beste thing ever :)
This car once again demonstrates the knowledge and technology that they have in house, gems like DSG, the W16, quatro, etc. all bring a tear to my car-loving-eye.
Ofcourse i hear that VW does not have a very good reputation in the states, but here in europe they are bige and many people here will acknowledge their cars as highly reliable.

--
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by thadeusg · 2004-04-28 06:55 · Score: 1

The RX-8 engine is called the RENESIS.

The TT RX-7s were no different reliability-wise as any other rotary engine. As you alluded to (and as someone else has pointed out) you just have to know how to take care of it. Granted the TT RX-7 is a PAIN to work on (vacumm hoses galore), but it's just as reliable as any other. Pain in the ass to fix != unreliable.

The thing to remember is that this is NOT YOUR NORMAL RECIPROCATING IC ENGINE!! ;)

Also, I'd like to point out that the cost of a tear-down and rebuild (if you do it yourself) are cheaper than "normal" engines, and when something does go wrong, the results are usually a lot cheaper to fix as well.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by drinkypoo · 2004-04-28 07:21 · Score: 1

Well I hate to use buzzwords but it comes down to TCO. For people like you and I who are happy to pull motors and rebuild them (Actually I've never rebuilt an engine but I think I will be pretty soon) owning a RX-7 is a reasonable thing to do. I might get one eventually if I can get my hands on one cheap enough, though I have no idea how I'll FIT in the thing, I had to butter my ass just to get into the passenger seat of the only one I've ever sat in.

But, for the average person, a rotary requires rebuilds too frequently. While the cost of the parts is less than for a four-stroke ICE, the cost of the labor (probably less than for a four stroke) will likely still be significant.

That said, if RENESIS (I used to know the name of that thing, I did an e2node on the RX-8, even) lacks most of those problems, it's worth it. The car has turned out to get really terrible mileage from what I hear, only giving good mileage if you drive it as if it were a 1.6 liter four banger or something. 230-250hp from a 1.3 liter is amazing, but it doesn't sound like they've really ironed out all the kinks yet. Certainly the kind of power the thing is capable of developing is impressive, but it's pretty sad that you can actually get better mileage out of a fuel injected 350.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by thadeusg · 2004-04-28 07:31 · Score: 1

I had to butter my ass just to get into the passenger seat of the only one I've ever sat in.

Haha, I'm 6'2 and I fit in them just fine. Just don't get an overly harsh suspension or you'll have knots on the top of your head (Like me). I kinda like a tight fitting car though. I like to put my car on, not get inside of it. I'm also the type who doesn't mind the hassle of a racing harness in a daily driver; I like to drive my car, not have my car drive me, so YMMV.

Rotaries are amazing, but I will agree they aren't for your average driver who has a "Set it and forget it" mentality.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by burbilog · 2004-04-28 11:48 · Score: 1

The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot .

Reliability problems (this was solved only recently).
High fuel consumption.
High motor oil consumption (you have to mix oil with fuel).

Turbine and turboprop are simpler and cheaper in long run, because rotary engine is still combustion engine with lots of engine parts and harmful vibrations.

Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane by drinkypoo · 2004-04-28 12:50 · Score: 1

I am 6'7" and about 300lb, plenty of fat but still mostly muscle. I love my 240SX partly because nissans have the most interior room of any Japanese import, bar none. If I get an RX-7 I'll have to customize the hell out of the interior to fit in it, but that's something I have the skills to do I guess, so I might as well.

for the record, my 240SX has 550lb front/500lb rear Eibach ERS springs (purchased when they still called them FRS) and ground control coil overs, with konis in the rear and I-have-no-idea-what in the front since they're inside the strut casings and I haven't bothered to open 'em. The handling is amazing, or at least it was before my T/C rod bushings disintegrated. (I have some polyurethane ones to go in, I plan to press them in and subsequently bolt them on tomorrow afternoon.)

I haven't got the money for racing seats yet, but seats and five points are on my list.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

6000HP on wheels by Animats · 2004-04-28 17:59 · Score: 1

The GE 7HDL(TM) is powered by a 16-cylinder, twin turbocharged, electronically fuel-injected engine. This 6,250 ghp diesel engine is designed and manufactured for higher horsepower, greater fuel efficiency, lower emissions, improved reliability and easier maintenance. Elastic mounts isolate the engine and alternator from the platform to reduce platform-induced vibration This isolation reduces stress on components and creates a more comfortable environment for the driver.

So there.

Re:Automotive Vaporware -aircooling by dario_moreno · 2004-04-28 21:20 · Score: 1

well, the legendary reliability of 911s is due to the comparison to Jaguars or Ferraris...in comparison to a mass-produced model, on a daily use basis, it is rather a nightmare, especially if not driven soft (which rather kills the pleasure). I had the pleasure of sharing a 930, only to be passed by an old Fiat when flooring it ! The owner explained that the double ignition had a tendency to reset itself from time to time, all one had to do was to remove the key and reinsert it !

I have also heard of countless motor overhauls (rather easy since the 911 is kind of a rally car), also due to a strange inclination of Porsche hobbyists to tune the engine (what's the point if you can already go faster than 99.9 % of cars on the road ?). I have seen a tuned 930 twin turbo with 450 HP which holds the speeding ticket record , according to the cops, at a certain highway bridge (285 km/h). The engine exploded at 80 000 km at the odometer (valves gone mad). As the owner put it, he sold it after some repairs (and countless legal troubles as well with the highway patrol as with the mechanics and the tuner) to someone "who used to be a friend".

--
Google passes Turing test : see my journal

637hp is nothing from a 427 (that's 100hp/L...) by caveat · 2004-04-29 14:17 · Score: 1

well, lessee here...637hp out of a 7.0L (427ci) is under 100hp/liter, which is a trivial output level - honda's s2000 puts out 120hp/liter; the latest round of F1 cars put out 250-300hp/L, and a Top Fuel rail (the BME car to be exact) pumps out 8000hp from 8.2L (500ci) - that's damn near a THOUSAND HORSEPOWER PER LITER. if you can get even 20% of that power in a mill that will run for 3000 miles with no maintenance, you're gonna be one of the richest men in history.

--

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley

657 comments