Slashdot Mirror


Bugatti's Latest Veyron, Most Ridiculous Car on the Planet?

Wired has an amusing writeup that accurately captures the most recent ridiculous addition to Bugatti's automobile catalog. The $2.1 million Veyron sports over 1,000 horsepower, a 16-cylinder engine, and a top speed of 245 mph. The guilty conscience comes for free. "That same cash-filled briefcase could buy seven Ferrari 599s or every single 2009 model Mercedes. You could snap up a top-shelf Maybach and employ a chauffeur until well past the apocalypse. Hell, in this economy, $2.1 million is probably enough to make you a one-man special-interest group with some serious Washington clout."

790 comments

  1. Yeah but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    does it run linux?

    1. Re:Yeah but.... by therufus · · Score: 5, Funny

      More importantly, at 2.1 million dollars, will it blend?

      --
      You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
    2. Re:Yeah but.... by colinrichardday · · Score: 4, Funny

      It comes with Windows Mobile on the navigation system.

    3. Re:Yeah but.... by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      does it run linux?

      I don't know about the Veyron, but the Tesla Roadster does. I have one of the logs right here. 2.6.11.8-1.3.0, BusyBox 1.00, 32 megs ram, Philips-LPC2294 CPU, etc.

      --
      All them years of priest training, taken out by one bounty hunter.
    4. Re:Yeah but.... by dotgain · · Score: 3, Funny

      Greeeaaaat. I've always wished my GPS had glacial boot times and a Win 3.1 lookalike UI.

    5. Re:Yeah but.... by haifastudent · · Score: 0

      It comes with Windows Mobile on the navigation system.

      Which was the only thing that the author found to complain about in the whole article. Telling, very telling. From TFA:

      If you can stomach the Windows Mobile interface long enough to set your destination, you get to view your route guidance in a tiny screen in the rearview mirror.

      --
      Thank for reading to the sig. You may stop reading now. It is safe. There is no more content. Why are you still reading?
    6. Re:Yeah but.... by ionix5891 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Boy would you be pissed seeing a blue screen after you signed over 2.1 big bobs

    7. Re:Yeah but.... by Ilgaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It probably runs VxWorks from Wind River systems. A RTOS. It must have a lot of processors and as the price is not a concern, it must be high end (and shielded) PowerPC stuff, a lot of them.

      Of course, I didn't hack the car :) Just guessing.

    8. Re:Yeah but.... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      It comes with Windows Mobile on the navigation system.

      Which probably wouldn't be much of an issue if it worked properly, but if I understand TFA correctly, the billionaires need to buy an outdated PDA to use it, and on a sunny day with the top down, they still can't see where they need to go.

      If I paid $2.1 million for a car, at the very least I'd want to be able to program the nav system from my high-end smart phone, and directions should be projected HUD-style in the front window, with brightness automatically adjusted according to how sunny it is and whether the top is down. That's not too much to ask, is it?

      I guess I'll just wait for Bugatti's next attempt to get it right.

    9. Re:Yeah but.... by craagz · · Score: 1

      with more than 1000 hp..oblig comment

      In Soviet Russia, Veyron blends you!

    10. Re:Yeah but.... by ndixon · · Score: 1

      It comes with Windows Mobile on the navigation system.

      If I paid $2.1 million for a car, at the very least I'd want to be able to program the nav system from my high-end smart phone

      For $2.1 million, I'd expect to have Mark Russinovich programming the satnav for me.

      And Jessica Alba sat in the passenger seat announcing driving directions.

      Wait. Does Jessica know her left from her right?

      --
      Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
    11. Re:Yeah but.... by rant64 · · Score: 1

      Any decent navigation system shouldn't require you to look at the screen, instead it should provide unambiguous voice instructions. Both nav-systems I've used (several TomTom models and the Professional system built into BMW cars) do this very well.

    12. Re:Yeah but.... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Any decent navigation system shouldn't require you to look at the screen, instead it should provide unambiguous voice instructions. Both nav-systems I've used (several TomTom models and the Professional system built into BMW cars) do this very well.

      Like you're going to hear that when doing 200 with the top down.

    13. Re:Yeah but.... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      It just SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    14. Re:Yeah but.... by EminNew · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think Bugatti (or WV) loses money on each Veyron as it costs more than 2.1 million to make. It's a matter of prestige.

    15. Re:Yeah but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter? I mean really. Does it?

    16. Re:Yeah but.... by rant64 · · Score: 1

      Then my argument would be that you shouldn't be doing 200 when you need directions.

    17. Re:Yeah but.... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      For $2.1 million, I'd want to decide for myself what I should and shouldn't do.

    18. Re:Yeah but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, does a BSOD equal it suddenly veers into the first large obsticle it can find?

    19. Re:Yeah but.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      I think Bugatti (or WV) loses money on each Veyron

      Hopefully Bugatti, WV can't afford to lose that kind of cash.

    20. Re:Yeah but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It comes with Windows Mobile on the navigation system.

      Thus, the comment about passive agression.

  2. Hell yeah! by SirBitBucket · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet you could rack mount a couple servers in the trunk (1U). Fastest datacenter on Earth.

    1. Re:Hell yeah! by enoz · · Score: 0

      A top speed of only 245mph (408kph)? That must be a definition of "Fastest" that I was previously unfamiliar with.

    2. Re:Hell yeah! by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 1

      well when you add the speed that we are all hurtling through space, that would be pretty fast... for a datacenter

      --
      Obama is a twitter sock puppet
    3. Re:Hell yeah! by necrostopheles · · Score: 1

      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Bugatti Veyron full of tapes.

    4. Re:Hell yeah! by beelsebob · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure where you got that it's supposed to be the fastest car on earth from. It's not -- it's supposed to be the fastest *road legal* car on earth.

    5. Re:Hell yeah! by enoz · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not sure where you got the "fastest *road legal* car on earth", because the post that I was replying to didn't mention road or legal or even car.

      But well, this is /. after all where we argue about pointless points (myself included).

      I could mention that the Veyron appears to have been superseded as the fastest road legal car a few years ago, but that would spoil all our fun.

    6. Re:Hell yeah! by fractoid · · Score: 1

      If it's bandwidth you're after, an E63 AMG wagon probably has more. The Veyron will have substantially better ping times, though. ;)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    7. Re:Hell yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what frame of reference?

    8. Re:Hell yeah! by SnowZero · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks. From now on, for any car I buy I'm going to calculate a constant times the storage space divided by the top speed. I mean, given our knowledge, how can you commit to a car without knowing its bandwidth?

    9. Re:Hell yeah! by wisty · · Score: 1

      Given that most passenger gets these days have an in-flight entertainment system, which runs off a data center, I'd say that's a bit optimistic.

      Not to mention military jets, bullet trains, and exotic things like spacecraft and the ISS.

      Oh wait, it's modded "funny". I guess it must be a joke then. My bad.

    10. Re:Hell yeah! by JustinRLynn · · Score: 1

      Probably about an OC1.

    11. Re:Hell yeah! by fullgandoo · · Score: 1

      It is the fastest (unmodified) production car.

    12. Re:Hell yeah! by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 3, Funny

      But well, this is /. after all where we argue about pointless points (myself included).

      I must disagree with that

    13. Re:Hell yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure where you got that it's supposed to be the fastest car *road legal* on earth from. It's not -- it's supposed to be the fastest *production* car on earth.

    14. Re:Hell yeah! by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      That's why I drive a pickup....

      Almost unlimited bandwidth if you're good with bungee cords.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:Hell yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even that, it's the fastest road legal _production_ car.

    16. Re:Hell yeah! by bryan1945 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I'm fairly sure I disagree with your disagreement. Wait, what are we talking about again?

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    17. Re:Hell yeah! by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I have absolutely no idea, but you are so wrong.

    18. Re:Hell yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. and it's not even that. The "fastest production car" is currently an American car called the SSC Ultimate Aero, and has been since 2007.

    19. Re:Hell yeah! by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      Not to pick nits, but SSC have been tinkering with their Aero supercars for more than a decade, and they're producing just 25 cars this year. That barely qualifies as "production," and wouldn't for most racing delegations in the Aero's class (GT-level.) "Nits," I said, I did.

      The Audi/Volkswagen and Porsche supercars, for comparison, come from factories that have run GT/GTP race teams for decades. Porsche's supercars are design descendants of their fully-homologated production race cars (necessitating hundreds of race-ready units per year to qualify.) I know which I'd pilot to a win in a one-on-one race versus the Aero TT, heh. The Aero is a fast car, but top linear speed doesn't matter on most courses, not unless it's a drag strip!

      The forthcoming Porsche GT1 2009 (*not* the 911 GT1 of last decade) looks to be a potential Veyron- and Aero-killer, with 950 bhp and weighing fully 500 kg less than the two-tonne Veyron - though still more than the ultra-light Aero, so who knows?

      More pointless points... fun to watch these mad-fast cars, man. Petrol still King! Maybe in 5-10 years we'll see an entirely electric grand touring group formed.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    20. Re:Hell yeah! by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Also, until just after 356 production stopped, the premier Porsche race cars were the same cars that were sold for street use. I've got a few old ads out of period car magazines, one shows a 356sc at a stop sign "We produce a race car so you can enjoy your drive to work".

      Unfortunately after the Carreras (the real 4 cylinder air cooled ones) the last street legal Porsche race car was the 904 ...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    21. Re:Hell yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think both of you missed where he said fastest "datacenter" on earth. Not car.

    22. Re:Hell yeah! by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      The 904... one of my favorites. Porsche didn't do so well against the GT40 with it, though ... and didn't do well again until the very-not-for-street 917.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
    23. Re:Hell yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very smart and diplomatic answer. Itâ(TM)s really appreciable and generous.
              attorneys

    24. Re:Hell yeah! by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      OK, then it'd be the fastest *road legal* datacenter on Earth.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    25. Re:Hell yeah! by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      The Veyron is the very definition of a production car. With 400 units being produced, infact it is a mass production car by some measures. The guiness book of world records definition of production car really doesn't matter in the real world, it's just a book of bragging rights in this case.

      It doesn't help the SSC aero that it doesn't look any better than most kit cars, nor has the kind of intended reliability the veyron would have. It wasn't designed to spend all day on the autobahn above 200mph and have a manurfacturers warranty. It is also no doubt completely undrivable due to it's power to weight ratio, first corner and it'll be part of the scenery and exhibit A in a lawsuit.

      The Veyron weighs in at two tonnes and has four wheel drive. Thats one-ton per axle to transfer torque to the wheels. Over it's rear axle the two wheel drive SSC has 40% of the weight the veyron and has to put down 25% more power.

      Can you say traction problems? One car never seems to even chirp it's tires 0-400kph, I bet the other could wheelspin above 200mph just by putting your foot down.

      There are road registered, road legal dragsters that are not only faster accelerating than both cars, but hit that top speed by the end of a standing kilometre. I used to own one that wasn't too far behind the veyron. The SSC is very close to off-the-shelf competition parts (if not entirely) stuffed into a road-legal race car chassis that has been floating around for some time in various forms and customisations. Thus the veyron is a serious engineering masterpiece, a real concord-momment, like most great engineering it has it's fair share of detractors.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    26. Re:Hell yeah! by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      The weight difference only matters for acceleration. Top speed is purely a function of max rpm, gear train reduction, aerodynamics (coefficient of drag and frontal area) and road/tire traction. Early top speed attempts with the SSC Aero hit a traction limitation near 200MPH where increased RPM only resulted in increased tire slip.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
  3. Top Gear Veyron goodness by errittus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Top Gear had an episode some time ago where they opened this beast up on the 5 mile+ straight at Volkswagen's German test facility. So damned fast - 407 kph!

    From the episode: "At this speed, the tires will disintegrate in 15 minutes - That's ok, we've only got enough fuel for 12"

    --
    you never lose in ure razorblade shoes......Beck-Hotwax
    1. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What about last week's episode, where they ran the Veyron against a McLaren F1?

    2. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Informative

      They also demonstrated the silliest thing about it, or any 200+ MPH car... It takes quite a while to get to those speeds. You may get 0-60 in 3 seconds, but the acceleration drops off rather rapidly. About the only place you can get a car like that up to speed *is* a test track with an enormous straight.

      I think it must have been 8 miles or more because they commented that the far end was out of sight due to the Earth's curvature!

      A guy tried driving a super-Ferrari (an Enzo, I think) like that here in Southern California a few years back. yeah, You guessed it. Mr. Supercar? Meet Mr. Telephone Pole. Sadly, the dumbass driving it survived.

      Another show mentioned how fragile they are. When they are featured on a show or test track, supercar makers box them up like ancient relics and ship them there. Contrast to the episode with the McClaren SLK that was simply driven to the filming site from two countries away.

    3. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Yep, greatest video ever. It's better than the one where they raced the Veyron against a jet fighter.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk1t6S737Cs&feature=fvst

    4. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by cl191 · · Score: 3, Informative
    5. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing breathes more air in a minute than I do in a week at top speed. If you know how a petrol engine works and that doesn't give you a hardon, please cut your man card up.

      --
      The game.
    6. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

          I can testify to that. My car is right around 4 seconds 0-60. I can jump ahead of just about anyone up through about 120mph. Pushing through 140, it's pushing. I've only accelerated just through 150, but ran out of road. A lot of the high speed numbers are worthless, because they'll never be reached.

          They say in the article, "...you can outrun not only the 5-0's cruisers, but their helicopters, too. If they wanna catch you, they're gonna have to dust off Airwolf...", but that's sensationalized journalism. Like I said, I've been up through 150mph, or 220 feet per second. Driving along at a mile every 24 seconds has it's drawbacks, like a 5 mile stretch takes 118 seconds to cross. What was a nice long straight stretch of road suddenly becomes very very short. What should take 5 minutes to drive at the speed limit is gone less than 2 minutes. God forbid that you're driving on land, where animals may wander across the road, or a car may come out of a side street. It's not like you're going to swerve without some serious side effects.

          I ran across a neat video on YouTube where a motorcycle driver was running from the police. Sure, they couldn't keep up, because he'd zip away in no time. Max air speed for an good unladen police helicopter (no extra equipment, seats, and minimal fuel) is 150mph. If they're carrying their normal equipment and enough fuel to follow with, that drops. He was doing over 150mph, and the helicopter kept up pretty nicely. Why? Because despite the fact that he was able to pull away from the helicopter at points, the helicopter didn't have to follow the road, encounter traffic, nor slow down for intersections. He was driving fast, he wasn't suicidal. A bend in the road creates a shorter intercept route for the helicopter to follow.

          If they're really after you, it doesn't matter how fast you're going. They may radio ahead and say to set up a roadblock, which sometimes can be avoided, but it's hard to avoid a shoulder to shoulder nail strip. 4 flat tires will keep you from getting away, no matter how fast your car was. That nail strip can mean a fatality when you hit it, if you're going way too fast.

          Do I speed as a daily thing? Nope. I cruise right about the speed limit, depending on conditions. My high speeds have been on tracks, where they belong. I know my car is really fast, so I don't have to prove it to anyone. Even if it's a kid with a Honda Civic and a coffee can for a muffler. :) I'm at the "why bother" phase of my life. Do I need to burn up extra fuel just to prove that I can go faster than him? Not really. It's not worth wasting my fuel, and potentially getting a ticket (or worse).

         

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Oblong_Cheese · · Score: 5, Informative

      They would not have used the launch control (a computer-controlled system that primes the engine and gearbox for the quickest start off the line) in the Veyron - if they had, there would have been no point to the film.

      The Veyron does 0-100Km/h (approx. 0-61mph) in about 2.5 seconds. The McLaren F1 does the same in 3.2 seconds.

      While the F1 is indeed an engineering marvel, and probably much more enjoyable to drive on a race track than the Veyron, it is clearly outclassed, though not surprisingly given the large age difference.

    8. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can testify to that. My car is right around 4 seconds 0-60. I can jump ahead of just about anyone up through about 120mph. Pushing through 140, it's pushing. I've only accelerated just through 150, but ran out of road. A lot of the high speed numbers are worthless, because they'll never be reached.

      140mph is just a tad over my _cruising_ speed, mate. Stop thinking in terms of your idiotic US highway system. There are plenty of stretches in Europe where you can go this fast for quite a while.

    9. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No... If acceleration is what you're after, at a fraction of the price, what you want is a Caterham 7 Superlight R500.
      http://www.caterham.co.uk/assets/html/showroom/superlightr500.html

      0-60mph 2.88 seconds
      Power-to-weight 520bhp-per-tonne
      Top Speed 150mph.

      Under GBP40k.

      I built its little brother (7RS150), with 0-60mph of 5 seconds, in my garage a couple of years ago. It's a very very very fun toy...

    10. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 4, Informative

      The McLaren F1 been discussed is not the race track version but rather the road legal super car built in the 90's in limited numbers.

    11. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by arkhan_jg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The ones they've had on Top Gear were the hard-top - this is the new convertible, not that you'd know it from the summary. Despite the massive engineering difficulties of slicing the roof off and having it stay rigid and roll-safe, they've managed to keep it as quick as the hard-top. Seriously impressive engineering, even if as a car it's completely insane.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    12. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if fairness, the person who crashed the Enzo was the owners son who wasn't experienced in driving a powerful car without driver aids...

    13. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kmph is not mph :D

      But seriously, there are other roads besides the autobahn topping 140mph? Because I'd love a list for if I ever go to visit :)

    14. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Informative

      And all of them are in Germany, I take it? ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    15. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      If you think of mph instead of bps when you hear "speed", cut your geek card up.

      I dunno about you, but how much air that sucks wasn't my first thought when I heard about its top speed. I was rather pondering what the maximum angular speed at that speed could be where you could still maintain traction with all four wheels on the ground. Then I noticed to know that I'd need more information than I have, like the center of gravity on the vehicle. The next thing was to ponder how much space it would take to accelerate to top speed, and that's when I noticed the country I'm from ain't big enough to reach it before hitting a border, so the whole thing suddenly was a lot less interesting.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    16. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also had an episode where they drag race the Veyron against a Euro Fighter. Though the Euro Fighter crossed the finish first (just barely), scarily enough, the Veyron first got caught in the jet wash, then had to jam the break to slow for the return turn, whereas the EF went straight up, and straight down.

      All things considered, summary's wisecracks aside, I think it's pretty fucking awesome that a car can keep up with, or even, under ideal circumstances, outrun, a fighter jet.

    17. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I have to admit, I wondered for a second myself, and I'd find it very unlikely a F1 racing car could be beat by any road legal car built for speed in any 0-whatever acceleration contest. Those cars are built for acceleration and traction, not for top speeds.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by AlXtreme · · Score: 4, Funny

      Max air speed for an good unladen police helicopter (no extra equipment, seats, and minimal fuel) is 150mph

      African or European?

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    19. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Informative

      You haven't seen their Africa challenge, have you?
      I think it is by far one of the best things that were ever shown on TV, on this planet!
      (The north pole and the USA challenge are also very impressive, but not quite as funny.)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    20. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by footnmouth · · Score: 1

      Indeed, according to the Mercedes stand at the Goodwood Festival of Speed which had the McLaren MP4/whatever that Hamilton world the world championship in on display, the F1 car hits 0-60mph in 2.3s, 0-100mph in 3.4s and 0-100-0 in 5.7s. All this is from memory, but it sticks there as I thought WOW

      --
      -- For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing.
    21. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Hell, the built cars with rocket engines and whatnot in the 60s, that could go 650 km/h without problems!
      And if you go extreme, the speed record for anything with wheels and no wings lies at 1223.657 km/h (over one km. or 766 over one mile).

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    22. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      They also demonstrated the silliest thing about it, or any 200+ MPH car... It takes quite a while to get to those speeds. You may get 0-60 in 3 seconds, but the acceleration drops off rather rapidly. About the only place you can get a car like that up to speed *is* a test track with an enormous straight.

      That's not even remotely true. You know, in Germany we *do* have cars on the road that do 260 to 320kph (abt. 160 to 200mph), although usually they get (electronically) limited to 250kph (155mph), and if you want to get an impression how an average car performs on a German autobahn at up to 320kph, have a look at this one:

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1063940552930517285&ei=9L9RSqn2NZOY2AKKp6GTCA&q=audi+lpg+vmax

      Sure, there's 45mph missing. But then, this is a (chiptuned) stock car, an unhappy 4.2l Audi A8 which fell into the wrong hands, which does *not* offer 1001hp.

    23. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just don't trust other drivers with my life or vehicle to go more than 5-15 over the posted limit. All it takes is for one soccer mom on a cellphone moving their Suburban over without a signal, and that would be a fatal rear-ender. Even with braking capability that would render someone 2 dimensional, reaction time is still important.

    24. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by selven · · Score: 1

      If you're seriously interested in top speed and top speed alone there are cars for that.

    25. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been in a car that did 220 kph (which is about 140 mph I think?) in Germany, but the number of places where you can really go that fast isn't all that big. A lot of places are getting speed limits (probably because it's unsafe to have all those foreigners testing their cars there), and in many places without speed limits, there's just not enough room to accellerate that far.

    26. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I know my car is really fast, so I don't have to prove it to anyone"

      Why do you have to "prove it" at all?

      Who cares.

    27. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      African helicopters are non-migratory !

    28. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by eltaco · · Score: 4, Informative

      nope.
      isle of man, for instance, has no national speed limit.
      fyi, they're part of GB.

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    29. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Just for those who are interested between Veyron and F1, here's some numbers.

      The Veyron has an 8 litre quad-turbo engine giving 1001 bhp. A Formula 1 car is limited to a 2.4 litre normally aspirated engine, limited to 780 bhp.

      The Veyron has a maximum speed of 220mph in normal use, the same as the limited speed of an F1 car.

      The Veyron will do 0-62mph (100kmph) in 2.46 seconds. An F1 car is around 2.2 - 2.7 seconds.

      A Bugatti Veyron costs $2.1m. A Formula 1 car costs $4.1m

      However, a Suzuki Hayabusa has a 1.4l normally aspirated engine producing 197bhp, does 0-62mph in 2.6s, and costs $12,000! Pocket rocket indeed...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    30. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot, no matter how fast it is you cannot out-run a radio, and finding a Veyron shouldn't be too dificult. We aren't talking about a honda civic here, it sticks out.

    31. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by bytesex · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the (toll) road from Florence to Milano is pretty good, too. And the road from Bordeaux to say, Poitiers - there are good stretches on that.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    32. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I currently have a ticket on my license for doing 96mph past a motorway speed camera (70mph speed limit).

      This was in a completely unmodified 1.4l peugeot 306 (70hp?). The only thing I'd want a more powerful car for is climbing the hills around where I currently live.

      Anyone else?

    33. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      My experience has been that most vehicles can comfortably drive at 70%-80% of their maximum speed. Pushing beyond 80% usually requires a dangerous level of commitment -- the driver must keep the throttle pinned, despite whatever else might be going on around them.

      If you watch the episode of Top Gear where the
      Bugatti is driven at 407KPH, you'll note that it hits 300KPH (~186MPH) without breaking much of a sweat -- something that is quite difficult to archive in many high performance cars, as per your experience.

    34. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can testify to that. My car is right around 4 seconds 0-60. I can jump ahead of just about anyone up through about 120mph. Pushing through 140, it's pushing. I've only accelerated just through 150, but ran out of road. A lot of the high speed numbers are worthless, because they'll never be reached.

      You don't buy a $2.1m car that can go 245MPH to actually go 245MPH. You buy it to brag that you can buy a $2.1m car that can go 245MPH.

    35. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Sure, sure the F1's are all great and all- but do they come with A/C and satellite radio? :)

      Really amazing that the most limiting factor to these cars are gravity and the roads.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    36. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by micro8safe · · Score: 1

      OLIVER!!

    37. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by orzetto · · Score: 1

      Most of highways in (West) Germany are actually in a pretty sad state. That's due to old age basically, and the fact that cities grew around them impeding the addition of more lanes. Asphalt quality is also miserable, and sometimes they use concrete(!). So, basically, virtual speed limits are enforced by virtue of low road quality.

      East German highways, instead, were built much more recently (20 years old or younger), so they are generally of much better quality. You can speed there.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    38. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Veyron is like a guy who chugs two cases of beer and passes out. I want to be the guy sipping a perfect Hendrick's and tonic. What good is all that power if you will never ever be able to use it because they geared it tall, for top speed? You'd probably get to 200 twice as fast (not that I'd probably ever do that) if it were gear-limited to 201 MPH. I used to have a 240SX with full-race suspension, it had a whopping 155 mph but zero body roll worth mentioning and gear-limited to 124. Who needs to go faster on the street, anyway? That car's charm is doing it sideways, not fast.

      The Veyron is a penis substitute, just like an Enzo. Period, end of story. If there's no actual joy in your life, you can buy a car, and risk your life in order to find some.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      I can testify to that. My car is right around 4 seconds 0-60. I can jump ahead of just about anyone up through about 120mph. Pushing through 140, it's pushing. I've only accelerated just through 150, but ran out of road. A lot of the high speed numbers are worthless, because they'll never be reached.

      140mph is just a tad over my _cruising_ speed, mate. Stop thinking in terms of your idiotic US highway system. There are plenty of stretches in Europe where you can go this fast for quite a while.

      What is the longest no speed limit stretch? My experience is much of teh Autobahn has some limits; plus given the size of Germany you get what, 100 miles between a major city?

      While I enjoy the Autobahn, I find I never can really go flat out for all that long before hitting traffic or construction.

      Germany, with it's rigid vehicle inspections (no 10 year old clapped out ex-cop car on bald tires and a mini spare passing you at 80+mph) and relatively good drivers who actually obey traffic laws at least on the Autobahn make it a relatively enjoyable place to drive. Although I did get a good scare one night when I was cruising at 100+mph from Berlin and saw headlights coming at me. Luckly no one was behind me when I went from speed to near stop in a hurry. Turned out to be an idiot on the shoulder facing in my direction.

      Now, the pre-NMSL American west; there was a place that has great stretches of long flat roads. Too bad the no speed limit days are gone; I know of no roads with no limits anymore.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    40. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by karnal · · Score: 1

      But how much does that car weigh?

      Here in the US, cars weigh a good bit more. Not to mention (until recently) no one wants to sell a car that won't get out of it's own way. Everyone is aggressive here for some reason.

      --
      Karnal
    41. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting police helicopters migrate?

    42. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by bogjobber · · Score: 3, Informative

      Isle of Man isn't part of the UK or Great Britain. And since the island's only about 35 km long it would make for a very boring drive at > 200 kph.

    43. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      A trailer-park meth lab on fire takes in more air in a minute than you do in a week. That barely gives me a semi-woody.

    44. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      posting as an AC to avoid a reputation: 147 in a 65 in Texas. Driving a 1987 Porsche 944 (approx 140hp, they know how to make them ponies work) oh yeah.. the car had nearly 200k mi. on it at the time.

    45. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by kkrajewski · · Score: 1

      Really, only 70 hp? My SV650 produces 72.

    46. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      I can assure you there are stretches in the American West that have plenty of straight, flat road for hundreds of miles. Plenty of time to steep up. Unfortunately, few have the ability to inhibit deer, antelope, or other animals from intersecting your path.

    47. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Check the new Top Gear where they put a Veyron against a McLaren F1.

      The F1 leaves the Veyron standing off the mark and it takes quite a while for the Veyron to catch up and finally overtake...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgTXSqys_0o

    48. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      According to this: http://www.ukcar.com/road_tests/peugeot/peugeot.306.turbo.d/
      The 1.6l version is around 1000kg and has a three star crash safety rating. I imagine the 1.4l version isn't much different.

      Also check out the picture of the inside of the boot compared to the "Neat wheels" picture from the outside, it's like a tardis, at least twice as big inside as it looks from the outside.

    49. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      I looked it up, it's 74hp.

      At least, it was when new.

    50. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      it doesn't matter how fast you're going. They may radio ahead and say to set up a roadblock

      No vehicle on the planet can outrun radio waves.

      It's why it rarely makes sense to try and run from the cops.

      --

      Question everything

    51. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by nosfucious · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      I was only ever watching Top Gear "in passing". However, after the Africa challenge, I now count myself a true fan and a hypocrit. As in, I don't have a car.

      In my defence, I did buy a Yamaha XJ6 recently though. And Top Gear is good entertainment first, and a car show by accident.

      --
      Q:I was listening to a CD in Grip and it sounded horrible! What's up? A:Perhaps you are listening to country music
    52. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent my friend!

      Especially the last paragraph. Even if my car is not as fast as yours, (8 sec for 0-60), it's relatively fast for my needs. I chose the particular car because it doesn't look "fast" or "flashy". It does not consume much, and I like to know that there's some power under the hood when *I* need it.

      I love driving but I also believe that fast cars are for the track and there is no need to risk your life burn extra fuel or just getting angry because of the "slow" driver in front of you. I drive mostly to get to work, and that definitely don't worth a speed ticket or a bad temper.

    53. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by oldspewey · · Score: 4, Funny

      This reminds me of a time years ago, when the girl I used to date had a little cottage on a SMALL recreational lake - it was maybe 2km long and less than 1km across. Some tool down at the other end of the lake bought himself a big 30 foot motherfucker of a cabin cruiser with what sounded like twin V8 I/O motors. He'd roar up and down the lake all day long: 45 seconds one way, turn around, 45 seconds the other way, turn around, 45 seconds, turn around, 45 seconds, turn around ... we'd sit out on the dock watching and speculate as to whether he was compensating for certain shortcomings, or if he was afflicted with some mild form of mental retardation.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    54. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by dkf · · Score: 1

      Isle of Man isn't part of the UK or Great Britain. And since the island's only about 35 km long it would make for a very boring drive at > 200 kph.

      Don't worry. The roads aren't straight there anyway, so holding even 150 kph is hard for a car, and much of the island does have speed restrictions in any case. It's only really along the TT course where you can go fast with any degree of safety.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    55. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      teh Autobahn

    56. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by russotto · · Score: 1

      They also demonstrated the silliest thing about it, or any 200+ MPH car... It takes quite a while to get to those speeds. You may get 0-60 in 3 seconds, but the acceleration drops off rather rapidly. About the only place you can get a car like that up to speed *is* a test track with an enormous straight.

      You've never heard of Interstate 95?

    57. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by karnal · · Score: 1

      Looks similar to a mid-size sedan here; for reference, the peugeot is about 2500lbs, where an average mid-sized car here looks to be 3400lbs. 900 pounds of weight difference means a lot in terms of MPG and spiritedness. Even a jetta, which I would consider small, weighs in at just over 3200lbs.

      --
      Karnal
    58. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by russotto · · Score: 1

      The Veyron is a penis substitute, just like an Enzo. Period, end of story. If there's no actual joy in your life, you can buy a car, and risk your life in order to find some.

      Yeah, like there's no risk involved with the former. I mean, what do you think is more dangerous

      1) Running the Veyron at 200+mph on public roads or
      2) Trying to pick up that hot chick with the tattoos, leather, piercings, and chains?

      (Bring the Veyron and you may succeed at #2, but that doesn't make it any safer...)

    59. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by thesolo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it must have been 8 miles or more because they commented that the far end was out of sight due to the Earth's curvature!

      For the record, Ehra-Lessien's main straight is exactly 9 kilometers in length.

    60. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by TheThiefMaster · · Score: 1

      Heheh, that's the car from the horrifically bad US Mythbusters commercials, denouncing the myths about diesels being noisy ("sound like tractors!"), smelly, underpowered, etc.

      I especially liked how they said it was quieter than an average washing machine. That doesn't sound particularly quiet to me. The car is quiet, they could have just said it a little better.

    61. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can testify to that. My car is right around 4 seconds 0-60. I can jump ahead of just about anyone up through about 120mph. Pushing through 140, it's pushing. I've only accelerated just through 150, but ran out of road. A lot of the high speed numbers are worthless, because they'll never be reached.

      140mph is just a tad over my _cruising_ speed, mate. Stop thinking in terms of your idiotic US highway system. There are plenty of stretches in Europe where you can go this fast for quite a while.

      The "idiotic" US highway system has improved significantly since the '73 Oil shock... Many states have 112kph limits on the highways now, which translates to roughly 130kph permissive in most conditions, not worth the officer's time to write a ticket for 79mph when he can write one on someone else doing 85mph for 3x the money. In legal theory terms, Montana has had some "unlimited" speed roads for a few years now, but in practice you can still get pulled over for just looking strange - better (less likely to be pulled) doing 90mph in a pickup truck than 70mph in an expensive import.

      As for what's possible, a little over 10 years ago, I crossed Louisiana on I-10 in just over 2.5 hours - starting from Beaumont Texas at 8am on a Tuesday, I was in Mississippi before 11. It's not the kind of thing you want to do often, especially in Louisiana, but enforcement is thin enough on the ground that these things are easily "doable" in the right conditions.

    62. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fyi they are a Crown Dependency and not part of GB

    63. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not our "idiotic" highway system; in fact, our roads have a hell of a lot more places to open 'er up than yours do. The problem is our common idiots who drive Honda Accords and think that 120 MPH is really fast and dangerous. I've gone 163 MPH running from the cops on the interstate (in one of several similar occasions) in a Mustang GT and yes, I got away. The people who try to argue about helicopters, or "radio is faster", etc just don't know what the hell they are talking about. If you are running from the cops long enough that a police helicopter is able to find and track you, or the cops have time to set up roadblocks, you've already fucked up and deserve to be caught. Cops are ridiculously easy to outrun if you have a decently fast and good handling sports car, have some experience driving at speed, and have half a brain. Just speed away, get out of his sight, then zig zag down some backroads and HIDE for a while. As long as he didn't get your tag number you're good to go.

    64. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you have never run from the cops before. I've run plenty of times, and the only time I got caught was because I was right in the middle of installing a new fuel injection controller on my Camaro, and had some wires temporarily taped up that came loose and killed the motor. I know for a fact that I would have otherwise gotten away clean that time as well. Radio waves don't pull people over and make arrests, cops do, and cops move much slower than the speed of light. If you have any driving/running skill at all, by the time any other officers have time to respond and take steps, you're already parked somewhere in hiding waiting for them to give up the search.

    65. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see your POS 240sx outperform an Enzo in ANY kind of race or condition. Geared too tall for top speed... LMAO. When you have a THOUSAND HORSEPOWER (and torque to match), gearing does NOT matter, it will still blow your ass away and look better doing it, too.

    66. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isle of man doesnt need a national speed limit. The length of roads are limited anyways.

    67. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. I'm a female petrol-head. Does being breathless with desire count?

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    68. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unsure of the tire thing but floored it will suck down the tank in 8 minutes.

    69. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have put way too much thought into thinking about trying to escape the police. Worried about those bodies in the crawlspace back home?

    70. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But good luck finding a five mile straight run with no intersections:

                                        http://www.gov.im/infocentre/townstreetMaps/streetmap.aspx

    71. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      --
      The game.
    72. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by eltaco · · Score: 1

      yes, yes, technically a self-governed crown dependency. very flashy explanation when people ask where it is. next time when someone asks me I'll just say 'not in germany'.

      I intrigue at your knowledge of british isles governance but am dismayed at your lack of geographical knowledge thereof. any which way, I refer you to Dkf's comment a few comments down.

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    73. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Well maintained, is it? What's a pothole like at 200 MPH? ;-)

    74. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Kentari · · Score: 1

      From the Wikipedia article you can get that the coupe Veyron does (and the convertible won't be far off):

      0-100 km/h in 2.46s
      100-200 km/h in 4.8s
      200-300 km/h in 9.4s 300-400 km/h in 33s

      I wouldn't say it drops off quickly after reaching 100. It does the 200-300km/h jump faster than my new car will do 0-100km/h... Keep in mind that the difference in kinetic energy between 300km/h and 200km/h is 5 times larger than between 100km/h and 0. It's performance is stunning and saying it becomes "slow" after 100 is like saying orbiting around the Earth in a Space Shuttle is dull after the launch. If you want to prove me wrong I'd accept a ride with a Veyron...

      Oh, and that main straight on the VW Ehra-Lessien test track really is only 8.9km (or 5.5 miles for the metric disabled). You can measure this yourself with Google Earth or Google Maps.

    75. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Take it up with the folks at Top Gear, then. Anyway, I was talking about going more than 200 and you countered with speeds up to 200.

    76. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      not only is my dick bigger than yours

      Pics or it didn't happen ...

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    77. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      Admittedly, when watching the video, one notices that going from 100km/h to 200km/h takes 17 seconds, whereas 200km/h to 300km/h over a minute (probably about 10km in length). The entire 9 minutes of the video cover about 40km in range, i.e. an average speed of 266km/h.

      Still, compared to the Bugatti's 1001hp that very Audi S8 is significantly underpowered (although the Bugatti might not make full use of them in terms of acceleration, AFAIK the gearbox won't stand that).

    78. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... If acceleration is what you're after, at a fraction of the price, what you want is a motorbike.

      The GSXR1300 does 0-60 in around 2.6 sec, depending on the rider.

      That bike would be under GBP10k

    79. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Max air speed for an good unladen police helicopter (no extra equipment, seats, and minimal fuel) is 150mph. If they're carrying their normal equipment and enough fuel to follow with, that drops. He was doing over 150mph, and the helicopter kept up pretty nicely.

      Fuel and overall weight makes very little difference in the speed of an aircraft, just pretty much effects the burn rate of the fuel itself and extra load effects other performance factors such as speed during a high G manuver.

      Helicopter speed is limited due to the problem of the speed of the leading edge of the rotor as it moves through the air. The tip travels far faster than the root of the blade. That in and of itself is no problem.

      What is a problem however is that the tip is moving at say 400 mph or so, and the base is moving at next to nothing. Again, by itself this is fine.

      When you add 150 to 200 mph of forward airspeed to it however, you have a tip speed in forward motion that is rapidly approaching the speed of sound. Now you have a problem. You have the problem of part of the rotor operating in supersonic conditions and part of the rotor operating in subsonic conditions. That in and of itself is extremely stressful, couple with it the fact that each rotor blade is transitioning into and out of supersonic mode every rotation and you rapidly run into the problem of having a airfoil that is extremely weak overall transitioning in and out of supersonic conditions hundreds or thousands of times a second. The end result is generally that the helicopter tears itself apart due to vibration and stress in an extremely short period of time.

      We've just relatively recently come up with the technologies and materials to allow us to deal with the stresses of that sort of flight, but I'm pretty sure about the only people with that information are bound by DOD contracts, and as such you're not likely to find a non-military helo that would be able to withstand those speeds.

      The extra weight and aerodynamic drag arent' a problem for helos and haven't been for a while, transitioning between subsonic and supersonic modes of flight a thousand times a second on the other hand, doesn't go over so well.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    80. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 1

      I remember that one, Captain Slow maxing out a Veyron. Great fun. The range at top speed reminds me of the London to Oslo film (still one of their best, IMHO), where Jeremy noted that his McLaren Mercedes would only go 19 minutes flat out on a tank of gas. I've only ever maxed out an Opel Corsa and a Fiat Marea. In France, curiously: the traffic in Germany is so heavy that top speed and lack of speed limits rarely matters.

      They described it as a "Concorde moment", the fastest road car that has ever been made, or probably ever will be made. They also had a good laugh that Jeremy Clarkson is now the slowest Top Gear presenter, after Richard Hammond in the jet car and James May in the Veyron.

      The latest James May program (James May on the Moon) included him riding along in a Pontiac GTO (i.e. Monaro) as a chase planes while landing a U2. Then he went for a ride in a U2, the closest he could get to actually going in to space.

      ...laura

    81. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Weight is irrelevant. Mass is as well as far as top speed, but it does effects acceleration.

      If you don't change the aerodynamics of the car (i.e. put all the mass inside) it will do the same top speed in a straight line as it will without (with an extremely tiny difference due to additional bearing drag, but thats probably not detectable on any radar gun or speedometer that you're going to measure it with.) Its just going to take a lot longer to get there with 2 tonnes of additional weight

      The difference between a Peugeot 306 carrying 2 tonnes of mass and one that is only carrying fuel and a passenger is going to be how long it takes them to get to 96mph, not if it is capable of doing so.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    82. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by danomac · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in another episode of Top Gear (Season 7, Episode 5), Clarkson said you could race the McLaren F1 with the Veyron, letting the McLaren F1 get to 120 MPH before the Veyron sets off, and the Veyron will beat it to 200 MPH. That's phenomenal acceleration. It's not terribly quick off the line (most all wheel drive cars are slower off the line than their two wheel drive counterparts.)

    83. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by severoon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is what I don't understand...why have such a fast car at all? It sounds like you pay handsomely for the privilege of driving it--I mean really driving it--what, once a month? Couple times a year? If you're not gonna teach coffee can muffler kid a lesson, is it really worth it?

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    84. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      And then there's the Big Red Camaro. It hit 222 MPH on a twisty Nevada highway and averaged 197 MPH for the entire run, back in '89.

      WHAM! The Camaro shot forward, straining on the edge of traction on the shaved Goodyear Z-rated Eagles.

      WHAM! R.J. shifted into second and squeezed the throttle till the rear broke loose, then eased off to get a grip again. The faces on the starting line, once individual, blurred into one long line of eyes and smiles and open mouths.

      WHAM! We were in third gear and the wind was beginning to roar outside the side window. Man, are going fast! But as the engine sliced through the rpm, I knew we weren't going half as fast as we would be going. About the time the tach read 7000 rpm in third gear, the road had shrunk to about half as narrow as it was when we shifted to third. We were flat cooking.

      The shift into fourth wasn't quite as violent. The 2.52 rear gear was tall enough to take the edge off the torque, and the car just seemed to squirt smoothly up to light speed. The tach settled in at 6500 rpm, or roughly 200 MPH, and I swear that I was seeing the shif of light from the doppler effect that occurs at relativistic speeds.

      As we descended into the valley and denser air, the engine made more power and climbed to 7000 rpm. I remember Bill Osborne saying, "If you see 7000 rpm in fourth, you're going 220 MPG."

      --Joe Pettitt, Hot Rod magazine, Feb. 1990.

      This was from the 1989 Nevada Silver State Challenge open road race. They shut down 90 miles of state highway and let you go as fast as you can.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    85. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Sique · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't think so. There is the Isle of Man Trophy ;)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    86. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I-10 could be great for it.

          I was cruising between ... Well, I don't know. Nowhere and nowhere. Somewhere west of San Antonio, Somewhere east of El Paso. If I recall correctly, the speed limit is 75mph. The cruise was set to 85mph, and I still felt like I was getting nowhere fast. I kept thinking "160mph would cut this trip in half". I was trying to psyche myself up to just open up and go. I had been cruising in the left lane for quite a while. Every 10 or 15 minutes, I'd pass a car that was in the right lane. While I was doing fuel calculations in my head and still telling myself "160mph would cut this trip in half", a police car came the other way from a mountain pass. He turned around, so I reset my cruise for 74mph.

          He just gave me the warm friendly, "The speed limit is 75mph", ran my plate and drivers license to make sure I legal, and let me go. With the cruise set to 80mph, and I wasn't touched again.

          I'm sure he would have preferred 160mph. The next thing resembling a town was 40 miles a way. 15 minutes is plenty of time to set up a roadblock. It's not like there was anywhere else to go out there.

          I wouldn't have minded taking 100 miles of road, and seeing how fast I could really go. :)

          I know people race in the desert in California. I know people get caught out there too. California has some rather insane rules regarding racing. First offense, you lose your car for a month (30 day impound). If it has been modified for racing, instead of impound, it's crushed.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    87. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          It doesn't take a fast or exotic car to lose a cop that way.

          I don't like being followed. When it's become more than obvious that I am being followed, I've lost them. Maybe I'm a good target. Maybe they're bored. Whatever. The police like to say, if they follow someone long enough, they can get them for something. I got a "careless driving" ticket once, because the cop said I swerved a little. He followed me for over 10 miles, and I hadn't swerved once. I had the cruise set to just under the speed limit, and I was very aware of my driving the whole time because I knew he was behind me. It was a ticket that neither of us could prove. He didn't bother to show up to court, so the case was dropped.

          All it takes is getting out of their visibility, and staying out of it. Two turns on back streets, and change your original direction can work wonders. You can be in an unmarked work van, or an exotic sports car. The difference with a work van is, once you're out of view, your van looks like so many others on the road. How many exotic sports cars just like yours are driving around in the area? I've parked in strangers driveways and laid down on the floor, just so they wouldn't see anyone in it. Ok, that's not the van because it's parked. Oddly enough, it works.

          My current car is fairly obvious to spot, unfortunately. The police that patrol where I drive frequently recognize it, and know I don't do anything stupid. Sometimes they'll wave to me, so we're all good. There's a road close to home that's wide open, and would be a good candidate at night to do in excess of 100mph on. The speed limit is 45mph. I do 45mph. My friend has a similar car. I guess they don't like her as much. She's been pulled over a few times. The last time was for a burnt out tag light, and she was ticketed for it.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    88. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Yup.

          I'd rather be in a modified Ford Crown Vic than a exotic sports car, as far as that goes. As long as the mods are mechanical and not cosmetic or noise creating, it would blend in pretty nicely. Either your a cop, taxi, an old person, or driving a retired police car. :)

          For stealth, I'd go with a white van with Verizon markings on it. Park where ever you'd like, and put cones behind your truck, and no one will bother you.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    89. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          The Veyron? Because they can afford it. Me? Because it actually gets good highway mileage, handles great on wet or dry roads, and I have the power to get around things. I have choices if the person beside be starts drifting into my lane. I can motor out of their way, or hit the brakes.

          For the coffee can club, I can bump the gas from a stop light without spinning my tires, and be 6 car lengths ahead when I reach the speed limit and set the cruise. Hopefully they got the idea by that, but they don't always. It's funny watching them continue accelerating, and eventually get pulled over. The thing is, I don't even have to accelerate hard. I can wait behind them, and they'll still speed and get the ticket. :) I guess they're trying to show off that they're "fast". Congrats on that, hope you like the ticket.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    90. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      Well... TopGear did do an episode where they transported a white truffle from Northern Italy to London it was Veyron against a light airplane and a train.

    91. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if there were two helicopters...

    92. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They say in the article, "...you can outrun not only the 5-0's cruisers, but their helicopters, too. If they wanna catch you, they're gonna have to dust off Airwolf...", but that's sensationalized journalism.

      It is, and here's another reason why: fuel consumption.

      Imagine that you actually DO manage to reach top speed in a car like this. Exactly how long do you think you're going to be able to maintain that? You'll be pulling into a gas station VERY quickly, and the police that get much better mpg values out of their slower cars will catch up with you there.

      And when they do, what are you going to tell them - "sorry, officer, that must've been ANOTHER 2 million dollar car, you know how common they are"?

    93. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't need to - if you go faster than 10mph you start swimming

    94. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      most all wheel drive cars are slower off the line than their two wheel drive counterparts.

      SO true. It's how I beat those WRX's everyone's got. My car's not that fast. The AWDs have got good bite, they kind of "
      jump" off the line, and if one cathes me at the line I have a tough time... until he hits about 20 mph.... Then the crude torque just chomps em down like a starving dog at turned over dumpster from a cheap buffet and I overtake them until we hit a corner.

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    95. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, it's not part of Great Britain or the UK, its a self governing crown dependency. And it's our national day today, yay!

    96. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you on that point about the accord type. I've known some that even 80 makes them panic. However, most roads unless lucky to be in an unpopulated state have a hazard nastier than police -- moronic drivers. The same person who is going 60 in the minivan is going to switch lanes when they see someone pulling up fast in the rear view, both for showing off self righteousness, or hoping for a rear end wreck for some insurance money.

      Don't think you can just gun it and outrun the cops if you feel like it. Thanks to domestic terrorist funding which has to go somewhere, almost any new cop car comes with a decent resolution front dash cam, (some with two just to get the license plate). Its so easy to run plates across computer systems these days, that most police do it often. A couple years back, the same license plate searches would require talking a dispatcher's ear off, perhaps wasting time in an emergency. Now, it's routine to check hundreds to thousands of cars an hour. Someone zips off when pulled over? That car and the picture of the back of the driver goes as a "be on the lookout for" to the city and state computer system in seconds.

      So, yes, you might be able to avoid the PD before they spin up their chopper, but next time a cop sees that car and runs a plate, they radio ahead to have the guy with the stop strips ready up ahead just in case of another run (and another felony charge they can get someone for), then proceed with a felony stop.

    97. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm at 5 not 4, but still know what your talking about. The only time I've really used my top speed was crossing from Idaho into Wyoming on my way to Denver, CO. My speed limiter is around 156? I never got there. I just cruised at 135-140 for quite a long time under the cover of night, but it wasn't really comfortable, Definately drove over the headlights. RPM's were only at about 2800 but the wind noise gets CRAZY loud. I made great time and I may do it again someday during daylight hours but not something I'd recommend people do, especially w/ a car not built for it.

    98. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by citylivin · · Score: 1

      "it's hard to avoid a shoulder to shoulder nail strip."

      Never fear! we have almost come to a point in the timeline where you can just say Auto-inflate!

      only 21 years to go!

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    99. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > If acceleration is what you're after, at a fraction of the price, what you want is a motorbike.

      That's true, but if you factor in long term costs, a motorbike is more likely to cost you an arm or a leg.

      --
    100. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by TheLink · · Score: 1

      200mph is about 320kph. The car in the video took quite a while to even hit 300kph.

      But I suppose it's not that silly to have a car with a 245mph top speed, if you just want to get to 160 or 200mph faster than the other cars on the road.

      --
    101. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I do not have a car either. But Top Gear is not about having a car. It is about wanting a car. (Quite obvious when you think about it. :)

      Especially about wanting a car that you will never be able to drive or even own.

      OK, OK, Top Gear is about the fun with it. The hosts are really great, with their emotions and how they act. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    102. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by afidel · · Score: 1

      Having been up to 185 on the autobahn I have to say it is a VERY scary experience that I will always wish I could repeat. I was driving one of the first supercars (Ferrari F40) and while it was capable of 201mph I ran out of straight road before I got to top speed. The smallest breeze at those speeds will push you half way across the lane despite the low profile and it takes a while (distance wise) to get back in the center! Where I think would be much less scary to hit those speeds would be I15 way out in the desert, majorly long straightaways and most of the time not a lot of wind or animals.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    103. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      Never been up to 185mph, only 165mph (BMW M350i). It definitely brings your pulse up to speed, although the biggest problem is not wind but other drivers. Especially those who think that the world ends around 90mph and any vehicle accelerates as slowly as theirs.

      But what truly amazed me was that according to the board computer it only used 13.5l/100km (abt. 17.5mpg). That is almost reasonable -- especially when compared to e.g. what my Olds Ninety-eight Regency swallowed during my US time... Without even going anyware remotely up to 3-digit speeds.

    104. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by afidel · · Score: 1

      My run was made in the middle of the night which is the best time due to lower traffic and the fact that your quickly approaching headlights which are constantly flashing (if you are sane you flick them whenever you see taillights and have a spare half second) is generally enough to keep the few cars on the road out of your way. The end to my run came when I approached a cure that was more than about 5 degrees. I had little doubt the car could handle it but I don't think I could have.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    105. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Zakabog · · Score: 1

      140mph is just a tad over my _cruising_ speed, mate. Stop thinking in terms of your idiotic US highway system. There are plenty of stretches in Europe where you can go this fast for quite a while.

      I've cruised a highway at over 140MPH, in the US. We've got really long straight, very well paved roads in the US when you're traveling out west. The longest stretch that I've driven on was by the salt flats, took me a long time to get across that ~40 mile long section of I-80. I could have kept my speed at 140 but I was burning through gas rather quickly and the next gas station was at the other end of the valley, and I wasn't sure at the time how far that was. What helped a lot is that I hit a rather large downhill section before the straight away so my car had an easier time accelerating.

    106. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like someone hit a little too close to home...

    107. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Your last line is probably the best advice I've seen given in a while.

          I may be scooting along on an interstate, and some little car that shouldn't go over 80 will go buzzing past. I know my car can go fast, and simply because of what it is, I can't get tires installed that are rated less than "Z". I use "Y" rated tires (186mph), and they are the only tires suggested for my car by any source I've found. I could go check the book, but I'm too lazy to walk out to my car. :) They figure, if it'll go that fast, they don't need to risk me actually doing it and blowing the tires out. My car's listed "max speed" was 162mph, but that is not a speed limiter, nor is it the RPM max in 6th gear. I suspect it may be a mechanical limitation as provided stock, but mine hasn't been quite stock for quite a while.

          I wish there were a rating system for vehicles, where say different license plates (and required licenses accordingly) to allow for different speed limits. For example, my wife had a Honda CR-V. I wouldn't take it past 80mph if it could and you paid me to. It just wasn't safe for that. That car has long since been sold, but it had cheap tires to replace the bald ones. It's not like it needed performance tires. I could get out and push it faster than it could accelerate on it's own. :)

          Really, such a rule would be good. In testing my car across the country, I found that I had improving gas milage as I cruised at higher speeds. The fastest I tested was 85mph. I did a little (or actually a lot) of math, and the best fuel economy should come at about 95mph in 6th gear. It's roughly a 5mpg difference doing 85 than 70. The Honda CR-V? Oh, that'd be down around 55mph somewhere. If cars were licensed to cruise on highways at speeds that were better for their configuration, people could save gas. Since just asking people to do it, and the general "drive the speed limit" rules aren't accurate, there has to be a better way to do it. I got into that extensively with a friend who drove a Prius. He insisted if everyone drove 5mph under the speed limit, they would get better mileage. I quantified the results for him with over the road analysis, plus calculations. He rephrased it average out, which may be more accurate, but I never found a way to average out all the cars on the road in the country or the world, even in stock configuration.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    108. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      From the episode: "At this speed, the tires will disintegrate in 15 minutes - That's ok, we've only got enough fuel for 12"

      The Bugatti has a 100 L tank. At 407kph it would cover 80km in 12 minutes.

      Thats 125L per 100km or 2.2 miles per gallon. Bold font deserved.

      For an extreme contrast a hypermiller might be able to take a unmodified toyota prius to 100mpg or 2.75L/100km at an average of 70kph.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    109. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      It is true that aerodynamic forces are by far the greatest acting on a car at speed, but rolling resistance is the second greatest. This may be as much as 20% of drag in a car like the Veyron at 400kph. So yes, making the car lighter will make the car a little faster, since rolling resitance is partially influenced by weight. Real world: Adding a passenger may take 1-2mph off your terminal speed.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    110. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      'Long term' costs are different on a vehicle with the mortality rate of a motorcycle.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    111. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should have written "an arm or a head" instead? I thought that would have been a bit too obvious.

      --
    112. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by iainl · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the (rather lovely) roads of the Isle of Man include sufficient twistyness that you won't be doing 140mph for more than a few seconds - so I'd argue that "cruising" at that speed is strictly Autobahn time.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    113. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by iainl · · Score: 1

      Which is just as well, as an actual Formula 1 car can get 0-60 in under 2 seconds. They don't have the theoretical top speed of the Veyron, but there isn't an F1 track on the calendar with a straight long enough for Bugatti's piece of silliness to get up to 240 anyway.

      For comparison, the Veyron's time around the Top Gear Test Track is 1:18.3. When they had Renault's F1 car on a few years back, it set a (not even dry) time of 59 seconds dead. Meanwhile, the Caparo T1 and the Ferrari FXX did 1:10.6 and 1:10.7 respectively, if you're comparing stupidly fast cars once corners enter the equation.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    114. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by iainl · · Score: 1

      Yes - there was an article in this month's Top Gear about the race; between putting Richard Hammond in the Veyron with no launch control and the decreased ability of the four turbochargers to compress air in the heat it was thought the race might be a bit closer.

      If they had been racing with some actual corners in, then the 2-tonne monster would have had to slow down and conditions would have been even closer; there are a load of cars that beat the Veyron around the Top Gear Test Track, although they haven't put an F1 round.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    115. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      The fastest I've ever driven was in 1971 when I had my 1st car, a Z28 Camaro that I had modified myself. It was on the Queen Elizabeth highway in Canada. Believe it or not, I started racing an old man in a Superbird.

      I was doing 85 (stated limit) and he just flew by. I cranked it and caught him at 145. He looked over, smiled, waved his cigar, and mashed the pedal, and took off as if I was standing still.

      Never saw him again.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    116. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by BoothbyTCD · · Score: 1

      Also it would be utterly suicidal, as the roads are super curvy and bounded by stone walls. Makes for an interesting motorcycle race, but when we went it was a tad bit scary even in our crappy rental car. Even the TT racers get pasted relatively often. Unless you are driving on the airport runway you and your Bugatti would quickly become part of the landscape.

      --
      snig
    117. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4 flat tires? Depends on the car. 4 flats won't stop a Mercedes. This one is driving on its wheel sideways.

      http://www.toxicjunction.com/get.asp?i=V4781

    118. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Andrew1963 · · Score: 1
    119. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Lord+Kestrel · · Score: 1

      It's been just over 10 years since I drove there, but there were stretches of road in Arizona/New Mexico/West Texas that were 50+ miles of perfect straight, where you could easily hit 130-140. You generally wouldn't even see another car for 20 mintures at a time, and I saw 1 cop in almost 800 miles. My car was electronically limited to 142, and I only had 150mph tires on, so 130-140 was just fine. Good roads because it never (or rarely) froze, and little traffic.

    120. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      WOW. I don't get how the hell he was driving straight, nor how he managed to keep moving. Usually when you're down to rims, they'll just spin and make sparks. There isn't enough friction to push with. I'm guessing his two right side tires were ok, which gave him enough to keep the car moving, and somehow managed to steer. It must have had a really nasty pull to the left. He oughta have a mechanic look at it, I'm not sure what could be wrong. hehe

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    121. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Not particularly. There was no physical evidence left, and it wasn't my house. :)

          That's one of those particularly bad mistakes. Criminals that get caught put the body in the trunk of their own car, and/or keep it at their house. There's more more damning evidence than being caught with a dead body in the trunk, or on your own property. How exactly do you say "no, I didn't know the guy who was shot with my gun, was in the trunk of my car, with my bloody fingerprints all over the place." I just don't know how long it's really going to take them to check out Bill Gates' house. Come on, I've been making the anonymous phone calls for months now. :) I left the body in the back of his spare Corvette stretch limo, that he never uses. :)

          [Note for the federal agencies who may view this, it was all a joke, except for the fact that Gates does own two custom built Corvette stretch limo's. I have not in the past, nor any time in the foreseeable future, considered nor committed homicide. No bodies have been placed anywhere either accidentally or intentionally. If a body is found on the Gates estate, I assure you I wasn't there, I had nothing to do with it, and I have witnesses to verify where I was at the time of any alleged incident.]

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    122. Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another show mentioned how fragile they are. When they are featured on a show or test track, supercar makers box them up like ancient relics and ship them there. Contrast to the episode with the McClaren SLK that was simply driven to the filming site from two countries away.

      Perhaps you missed the Top Gear episode where Jeremy drove the Veyron in a race from Italy to London?

  4. Just in time for my midlife crysis! by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anyone care to spot me the $2.1 million and a bit of gas money? :-)

    1. Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Troll

      how about a spell checker?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said spelling, not grammar, and was clearly referring to the title.

    3. Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A mid-life Crysis? Damn, all I had was a mid-life Grand Theft Auto.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    4. Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Better than my mid-life Burnout...

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
  5. Waste ? Dont agree by parallel_prankster · · Score: 0

    its a waste only if you buy it when you dont like it. I mean for some even a single ferrari 599 would be waste. if you have the money and you wanna buy this beast, go ahead and jumpstart the economy That said whether it is a waste to even build such a car, I dont know, there is a lot of research involved and eventually all research leads to something good (or bad).

    1. Re:Waste ? Dont agree by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I mean for some even a single ferrari 599 would be waste.

      For some? I'd say for the vast, vast majority of people.

  6. Re:If I ever see.. by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you parked it on the street without an armed guard, you'd deserve it.

    Friend of mine has a Ferrari.. it goes from the garage to the track and back again, and that's it. (Oh ok, sometimes it goes down the highway and gets him speeding tickets.)

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  7. Guilty conscience? by andytrevino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the "guilty conscience" wisecrack for? This thing is not only incredibly cool, but if you can afford it, you already pay enough taxes to support a small mid-American city. Get over it.

    1. Re:Guilty conscience? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not to mention the fuel duty you'll be paying. "Oh noes! Think of the planet!"

      The irony of course is the Veyron is probably better emissions wise than any 15 year old piece of shit the whining hippies drive. And you'd certainly do more damage ecologically in a Prius. (Whose toxic manufacturing processes make it an ecological disaster.)

      Just bugs me to see such smug arrogance from people on here when I would have expected them to marvel at the engineering. This car is technically impossible. Bugatti sat down and the engineers just couldn't figure out how to do it. It's an incredible achievement.

    2. Re:Guilty conscience? by tempguest · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ... if you can afford it, you already pay enough taxes to support a small mid-American city. Get over it.

      I doubt one is able to amass a fortune of over a billion dollars, without first learning how to exploit the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

    3. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the "guilty conscience" wisecrack for? This thing is not only incredibly cool, but if you can afford it, you already pay enough taxes to support a small mid-American city. Get over it.

      The implied assumption is that anyone who has this much money and nothing better to spend it on than a car probably didn't make said money in a legitimate way. (And probably isn't paying taxes to anyone.)

    4. Re:Guilty conscience? by andytrevino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Still, the sales tax alone on it is $155,500 at 5.5% which I'd pay if I bought this thing here in Wisconsin*, unless you're somehow going to smuggle it into the country to not pay sales tax, which would prevent you from properly registering it.. what good is a $2,100,000 car if you can't drive it anywhere?

      * Hah -- like a Bugatti dealer would ever set up shop in Wisconsin. :)

      I'm awfully tired of this jealous-of-people-with-money attitude. They probably earned it. More than likely they contribute vast sums to charitable causes so they don't have to pay taxes on those sums come death or tax day. If you want the cool stuff they get to have and experiences they get to have, earn it; don't get your jollies off telling THEM what to do with it.

    5. Re:Guilty conscience? by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. The way the summery read I was expecting TFA to be slamming this car. But the summary includes just about the only negative statement about the car. The very next sentences are about as opposite as can be from the summary and TFA pretty much continues on with that line of thought:

      But don't. Buy a Grand Sport. Even if there were another 253-mph drop-top with more luxury appointments than a Bond villain's boudoir, you wouldn't want it. You'd want this exact car, because more than being a blast to drive, it is the greatest gasoline-powered vehicle that has ever been, or will ever be, built. Seriously.

    6. Re:Guilty conscience? by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      yeah, you know paying some taxes relieves you of all guilt. Nothing at all wrong with spending 2 MILLION dollars aka 166 years of minimum wage, ON A CAR that you can't even drive that much.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    7. Re:Guilty conscience? by andytrevino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, there is not anything wrong with spending 2 million dollars on a car. It's YOUR money, so if you can afford to and choose to spend 166 years of minimum wage earnings on it, be my guest. Jealousy will get you nowhere closer to owning one of your own -- or, if you're like me, you can just ogle the Bugatti while you drive off in your '05 Ford Escape which gets acceptable gas mileage, handles great in the snow, and did not add $155,000 to the government balance sheets to support welfare recipients, public schools, the police and so on.

    8. Re:Guilty conscience? by 4D6963 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Welcome to the late 2000s. Be sure to feel guilty about the things you do in proportion to how much greenhouse effect gasses were emitted in the process. I had to start popping vitamin B12 just to make up for the guilt I feel for eating meat from such methane emitting animals as cows.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    9. Re:Guilty conscience? by Splab · · Score: 0

      Actually the Veyron is a pretty clean car, at low speeds only half the engine is turning and the emissions are as far as I remember cleaner than the air it breaths in most cities.

    10. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greens feel guilty for anything that might conceivably be fun, even on behalf of other people. It's the new Puritanism.

    11. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are many things wrong with spending 2 million dollars on a car, whether fairly earned or not (considering the target audience, the latter is far more likely, but - innocent until proven guilty).

      However, the core tenet of our society is the protection of property. Your money, your call. I will call it stupid if it is (buying such a car definitely qualifies), but the freedom to spend/waste money you own is sacrosanct.

    12. Re:Guilty conscience? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but it's simply not possible to make a moral argument.

      You can't say something like "why don't you give that money to the poor, it would do more good" because the indirect economic impact of that action is simply impossible to calculate. If you could calculate it, you could probably corner the stock market in some way, but hey, you probably would think there was many things wrong with that too.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    13. Re:Guilty conscience? by velen · · Score: 1

      This is not about haves and have-nots. There is a line between sanity and insanity. I am sure there are other more fruitful ways to splurge some cash.

    14. Re:Guilty conscience? by onescomplement · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, rich people are the lousiest charitable givers. Those below the poverty line in the US give a much higher percentage of their earnings to social good. I've been on several boards for charitable organizations and trying to pry money out of rich people directly is impossible. If they have a trust set up, you have a much better chance. I'd sit in the office of one of my causes and folks would walk in off the street and give us crumpled up $5 and $10 bills because the organization helped a friend or relative out.

    15. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm awfully tired of this jealous-of-people-with-money attitude.

      And *I'm* tired of any criticism of things like the Veyron always being chalked up to some sort of jealousy. For my part, I wonder what the engineering expended on a Veyron could have produced if turned toward more widely applicable efforts. I don't give a shit what rich people buy. In fact, as a free market person, I encourage them buying all the toys they like and keeping the money churning and working. But the those toys are not above criticism from a practical and pragmatic standpoint, and doing so does not a reveal oneself to be some wide eyed, class-hating bolshevik.

      They probably earned it.

      Maybe. They could also have been born into it. There's a lot of *old* money out there, more than most think.

    16. Re:Guilty conscience? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Expect them to give much, much less. The change to current tax system has not only increased the tax rate by 3% on the top bracket. It also removed tax-deductions for charitable contributions by those people. Which means that it will cost those in the upper tax bracket close to 40% more now to donate to charity. You can expect donations from them to drop by the same amount. And they are doing it during the the times when the number of people in need of charity is expected to balloon.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    17. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, rich people are the lousiest charitable givers.

      Like Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet.

      Seriously, if you can't accumulate wealth there is a lot less of an intensive to create it in the first place.

      What people do with their money should be their own business.

    18. Re:Guilty conscience? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm awfully tired of this jealous-of-people-with-money attitude. They probably earned it.

      They probably didn't. First, most people have at least one significant other who shares their riches. This fact alone means about 50% of the people with super spending power did not earn it. And that doesn't even include their heirs.

    19. Re:Guilty conscience? by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Imagine yourself stepping out of your $2.1M toy and saying that to someone whose children have died of starvation. Does that give you a slight moral twinge?

    20. Re:Guilty conscience? by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      Whose toxic manufacturing processes make it an ecological disaster

      [Citation Needed]

    21. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Imagine yourself stepping out of your $2.1M toy and saying that to someone whose children have died of starvation. Does that give you a slight moral twinge?

      Yes, because it was clearly the responsibility of the $2.1M toy owner to feed those children. How dare he/she not feed every child brought into this world by those unfit to be parents.

    22. Re:Guilty conscience? by tsa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can say that to everyone who owns a car.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    23. Re:Guilty conscience? by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Consider also that your 2.1 million dollars does actually go to keeping a bunch of people employed. It's not like the whole 2.1 million goes out of one wallet and into another. Someone's gotta get the raw materials out of the ground, convert it into something you can actually make stuff out of, actually make stuff out of it, design all the bits and pieces that go together, put all the bits and pieces together, etc.

    24. Re:Guilty conscience? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What would be more fruitful then owning the worlds fastest production car?

    25. Re:Guilty conscience? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I for one would like to say "yea" for the administration and their sticking it to the man.

      Unfortunately, while that sounds good and all, the man in this case will be the poor and needed who won't see the charitable help when needed. But at least they screwed those rich people right? oh wait..

    26. Re:Guilty conscience? by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hey, I'm going to do the wikipedia thing here and claim *citation needed

      Seriously, in modern professional homes, both parents are working and they both seem to be working at good jobs. Sure, there are going to be some trophy wives out there but for the most part, people who work their ass off don't really like being attached to people who do nothing.

    27. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Turkey sales tax was %40 percent.

    28. Re:Guilty conscience? by Spoke · · Score: 4, Informative

      And you'd certainly do more damage ecologically in a Prius.

      You're full of shit. But hey, you sound like you know what you're talking about, so you must be right.

      The Prius has about 90 pounds of NiMH batteries in it. Those batteries are largely benign, so you could toss them into the trash if you wanted to with the rest of your refuse if they failed, but Toyota will pay you to recycle them.

      Now, I think the "toxic manufacturing process" largely comes from the nickel that goes into the battery back. Now, I'm not sure how much of each cell is nickel, but I do know that your standard steel is about 10% nickel. Given that most of your standard vehicle is steel (and I'm sure the Bugatti is made of a ton of exotic materials like carbon fiber whose manufacture is more toxic than steel and can't be recycled like steel), and that the Veyron weighs about 1,000 pounds more than the Prius - even if the Prius battery was 100% nickel the nickel content of both cars would be similar.

      Plus when you factor in that the lead-acid battery in the Prius is about half the size of your typical lead-acid battery, you cut the possible leakage of lead into the environment (which is much worse than nickel) in half.

      I suspect that most of your assumptions about the toxicity of the Prius (and all other NiMH batteries) come from the widely debunked CNW "Dust to Dust" marketing study which claimed that the Prius alone was responsible for the widespread destruction of the area around a mine in Canada and that a Hummer (and thus a Veyron, apparently) is more environmentally friendly than a Prius.

      I'll simply point you to this link: http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/is-the-prius-battery-toxic where in the comments the claims are quite easily refuted (see especially comment #8).

    29. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation Needed]

    30. Re:Guilty conscience? by Spoke · · Score: 4, Informative

      the emissions are as far as I remember cleaner than the air it breaths in most cities.

      I dare you to suck on the tailpipe of any internal combustion vehicle. Please have paramedics on standby before you do.

      While cars are very clean these days and can in fact emit exhaust that is cleaner in some aspects than normal air, any claims of exhaust coming out cleaner than "city air" has to be taken with a grain of salt.

      BTW, the fact that it is able to shut off half the engine at low speeds only points out the fact that the engine is grossly over sized and powered for those speeds. It would be far more efficient if it simply had half the cylinders to start with (but then it wouldn't be able to push to speeds of 245mph).

    31. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the "guilty conscience" wisecrack for? This thing is not only incredibly cool, but if you can afford it, you already pay enough taxes to support a small mid-American city. Get over it.

      "if you can afford it, you know how to avoid paying taxes to support a small mid-American city."

      Fixed that for you!

    32. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine yourself, coming down off your high horse, putting in years of work, developing things the world needs (even if they are financial products), then having someone tell you, you're not allowed to spend your earnings, because someone is worse off than you, when you know that this reduces the amount of people who make money by helping other people, people who develop things so that people whose children would have died of starvation, didn't. Does that give you a slight moral twinge?

      You're an idiot. You obviously haven't studied economics, and as such have no grasp of the things you're attempting to talk about. Good work, you're damaging the world far worse than someone who spends $2.1M on a toy is. I hope this gives you a huge moral twinge, but I'm guessing everything I just said went way over your head.

    33. Re:Guilty conscience? by diskis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > For my part, I wonder what the engineering expended on a Veyron could have produced if turned toward more widely applicable efforts.

      But by building the Veyron, the engineers found problems that they wouldn't have found by building small hatchbacks. Ideas then are refined, and trickles down to normal roadcars.

    34. Re:Guilty conscience? by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      those unfit to be parents

      Ummm ... so you are saying that all of those poor people suffering from famine, war and disease in Africa are unfit to be parents?

      Anyway, my question was not whether they have a responsibility to feed them. My question is whether you would feel the slightest guilty if you were in that situation.

    35. Re:Guilty conscience? by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The irony of course is the Veyron is probably better emissions wise than any 15 year old piece of shit the whining hippies drive.

      So is EVERY new car on the road. Lower (smog-forming) emissions are one of the great success stories of the ecological movement. And it would never have happened if California hadn't been pressured to impose tougher standards. You can thank the "whining hippies" for that.

      And you'd certainly do more damage ecologically in a Prius. (Whose toxic manufacturing processes make it an ecological disaster.)

      All manufacturing produces waste, much of it toxic. Where do you think the rubber, plastics, and metal that your vehicle are made out of came from?

      Unless you have specific claims about how the Prius produces additional waste compared to a similar new vehicle, I can't really refute them. Which is exactly what you want. By calling the Prius "toxic", you cast doubt without making any real assertions. That's exactly the kind of cheap tactics I'd expect from someone trashing "whining hippies".

      Just bugs me to see such smug arrogance from people on here when I would have expected them to marvel at the engineering.

      We're not arrogant. We're angry. Angry that such engineering talent went into solving a problem that didn't need to be solved instead of the very real problems that do need to be solved. Show me a car that's lighter and stronger than today's cars yet still cheap to manufacture. That's the kind of "impossible" problem that needs to be solved. Not how to engineer a convertible supercar.

    36. Re:Guilty conscience? by mad.frog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bogus, debunked here:

      http://www.slate.com/id/2186786/

    37. Re:Guilty conscience? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Informative

      You and the grandparent are under a misapprehension. Generally the rich do not pay "duty" or "tax". Many of the people who buy this will be oil baron types from countries with no fuel tax. The type of people who "can afford it" are the type of people who pay almost nothing. Hell even Warren Buffet (who pays 17% tax whilst his assistant pays 30%) and Bill Gates (Sr.) have been campaigning against the unfairness of how little they pay.

      Once again with feeling. Tax is for little people. Like you.

      P.S. Actually an interesting thing about Warren Buffet's comments is that if you look through the Google search it seems this hasn't been reported much in mainstream media????

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    38. Re:Guilty conscience? by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Even if the exhaust is completely clean, you still can't breathe it, it lacks oxygen.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    39. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, sorry. There is nothing inherently wrong with using resources you have amassed to get something to your advantage.

      Enlighten yourself:

      Egotism.
      Altruism.

    40. Re:Guilty conscience? by Spoke · · Score: 0, Troll

      Feel free to mix in all the oxygen you want... you still can't breathe exhaust fumes for any significant period of time. If it were truly cleaner than city air, you should be able to breathe it for years.

    41. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sorry but it's simply not possible to make a moral argument.

      It's quite possible to make a moral argument. Of course, "just think of the poor!" isn't a moral argument - it's argument from emotions.

      The moral argument is this. Money indirectly represent resources. Buying expensive toys is wasting disproportionate amount of said resources on yourself, excluding the others. We have words for that - egoism, and egotism.

      Note that proper application of resources needs not have the form of "giving to the poor" - a much more useful way to spend money that's good for yourself as well as society as whole, in a capitalist society, is to invest them. Even better if you invest long term.

      Now there's a line to draw, obviously. Where you draw that is subjective - some people believe that buying an iPhone is highly immoral when there are e.g. starving people in Africa. I don't buy into that, among other things, because I don't believe in non-starving Africa in foreseeable future no matter the resources spent on that (I won't go into the reasons in detail here, but looking closely at SAR is sufficient to reach that conclusion). I don't feel responsible for the plight of those who have repeatedly shown to be beyond help.

      At the same time, an iPhone is actually quite obtainable in many parts of the world, including many third-world countries. So owning one doesn't really set you apart that much. There's no dividing wall there that cannot be crossed.

    42. Re:Guilty conscience? by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful
      We are not talking about "professional homes," but rather the super rich. Somebody with 5 million dollars is rich. You might get that rich being, say, a renowned neurosurgeon. 5 million is a lot, enough to afford a nice $200K Ferrari, but a $2M Veyron? No. So we are talking about people with hundreds of millions of dollars here. Even if they marry some hard-working professional worth $5M, it would increase the poorer spouse's spending power by about a factor of 100 - i.e. a negligible fraction of their newfound spending power was earned. So, when you talk about people buying a $2M car, you are talking about perhaps 10,000 eligible buyers worldwide (there are about 1000 billionaires worldwide), most of them later in life (look at the Forbes top 10). You want us to believe a significant percentage of those people are marrying each other?

      And again, this is without considering heirs at all. The two richest women in America, for instance, are Wal Mart heirs who had nothing to do with the business.

    43. Re:Guilty conscience? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit from the very moment you mentioned resources. Money isn't about resources.. it's about motivation. That car probably contains about $10,000 worth of steel. That's not what makes it so expensive.

      Why do we have schools to train engineers? Why do we have professors to run schools? Why do we have institutions like NASA to inspire people to become engineers? When people talk about these things, why do they say they are so important?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    44. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wouldn't make any difference even if US/EU cut 50% greenhouse gases tomorrow - China and India are full speed ahead in contaminating our atmosphere full of those gases. It almost seems futile for us cutting our greenhouse gas emissions when those two countries worsen the problem.

    45. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      those unfit to be parents

      Ummm ... so you are saying that all of those poor people suffering from famine, war and disease in Africa are unfit to be parents?

      Actually yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

      The #1 job for any parent is to take care of their child. If a person cannot provide basic necessities such as food for their child, then they should not be reproducing. Why that person cannot provide is an entirely different argument and may or may not be their fault. But until they can care for a child, they do not need to have one.

      To answer your other question, I do not feel guilty for someone else's poor choices.

    46. Re:Guilty conscience? by DirePickle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People that make $100k a year buy $50k cars, and probably have less than that in savings unless they're well on the way to retirement. Why can't somebody that has $5 million buy a $2 million dollar car?

    47. Re:Guilty conscience? by Simonics+Zsolt · · Score: 1

      "percentage of their earnings"

    48. Re:Guilty conscience? by MartinSchou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Angry that such engineering talent went into solving a problem that didn't need to be solved

      And how do you feel when you read about people who build browsers for the Commodore 64? Or build a RAID'ed floppy setup? Turn buildings into low res displays?

      Each of those things are completely ridiculous, gain us nothing of value (outside of entertainment) and waste time and energy that could be drected at "the very real problems that do need to be solved".

      Whatever happened to "because we can" as a mantra for why we build things that are completely unneeded? I'm not talking about making a catapult that launches criminals into a strong piano wire mesh, cutting them into tiny pieces that will then rain down into the crocodile cage at the local zoo. Building the Veyron didn't hurt you. Didn't hurt anyone (well, I did hear that one of the mechanics dropped a wheel onto his bad toe). Why so angry?

      Why so serious?

    49. Re:Guilty conscience? by bazorg · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are no bugatti dealerships selling this. They plan to produce 300 units and they're all accounted for. The oil cartel people get most, which is about right considering the 115L/100km (2.5mpg) these things can consume.

    50. Re:Guilty conscience? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      but the freedom to spend/waste money you own is sacrosanct.

      Why phrase it that way? The way I see it, I support my own freedom to spend money on things that I find valuable. As a tolerable (but yes, somewhat irritating at times) side effect of that freedom, I have to let you waste your money on silly trifles. Without your freedom to waste money, I can have no freedom to spend it.

      When phrased in that way, the symmetry of the situation becomes readily apparent as does the more fundamental purpose of the protection in the first place -- that value is a subjective concept.

    51. Re:Guilty conscience? by Catullus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Google is your friend. The figures quoted in that article don't completely bear out the original claim (the very rich give a higher percentage of their incomes than the averagely wealthy), but the poorest do indeed seem to give more than anyone else.

    52. Re:Guilty conscience? by Saysys · · Score: 1

      The true American value is the gospel of wealth, God blesses you with wealth to help others and not to waste on frivolities without function particularly when that money could be used to help those in need.

    53. Re:Guilty conscience? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The recent financial problems, caused mainly by people belonging to the group you just descibed, tell me that ... let's say it conservatively, not all really "earned" it.

      'til recently, high wages were justified with the insane responsibility managers have. Now we know, they have less responsibility to bear than the average plumber.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    54. Re:Guilty conscience? by operator_error · · Score: 1

      The change to current tax system has not only increased the tax rate by 3% on the top bracket. It also removed tax-deductions for charitable contributions by those people.

      Wow! if true, and I have no reason to doubt you, this aspect has been very under-reported. I am one for requiring those folks with higher incomes for paying a higher percentage of tax, as clearly they have benefited from all our country offers, and we all have to pay our bills to move forward, but removing charitable incentives by so much? Why haven't I heard about this before, and I thought I was paying attention. I will study this further.

    55. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone knows that rich people don't pay taxes.

    56. Re:Guilty conscience? by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because in this time and economy, I question the way he "earned" those 5 millions. Chances are that he didn't "earn" them at all.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    57. Re:Guilty conscience? by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      BTW, the fact that it is able to shut off half the engine at low speeds only points out the fact that the engine is grossly over sized and powered for those speeds.

      You do understand that your average commute only uses 15-35hp, right? The reason hybrid and gas-electric vehicles are so much more efficient is because their generator only needs to be sized and optimized for average power consumption, rather than peak.

    58. Re:Guilty conscience? by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I hate it when people ruin a perfectly good argument by pulling the "you obviously haven't studied economics" card. It's stupid. The only people who say that are people who know next to nothing about Economics. Anybody who had actually studied economics would realize that trained economists can't even agree on anything, especially when you start mixing up moralistic value judgments with the quantitative analysis. There is a reason that economists look down on normative statements and that's because it leads the debate to a philosophical dead end where everyone stops their feet and whines about how terrible everyone else is. Give me a break. Stop making yourself look like an idiot by accusing people who disagree with you on some subjective issue of knowing nothing about economics. Instead try formulating a cohesive argument, or just calling them an idiot.

    59. Re:Guilty conscience? by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Funny is, I know a guy who owns a $380.000 Porsche (yes, taxes) and always keep his Mazda 6 series for normal use. Porsche is his ''fun'' car for weekends.

      He also got ultimate enlightenment as a bonus when he went to last day of College with his Porsche as opposed to his Mazda 626. You know, seen true face of people, especially females. ;)

      Bugatti looks like a good buy if one interested in cars that much, has a 10-12 million dollar home, have area to setup a private tracks.

      Best attitude I saw was in Hong Kong. Cars are used of prestige and fun there, you see Maybach owners in metro on weekdays.

    60. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 5.5%? Here in Finland it's closer to 70%.

    61. Re:Guilty conscience? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, I have a base level of altruism - like I don't think people should thirst or starve to death or die from easily curable illnesses and such. But past a certain point I don't have any altruism at all. If you make 100k$/year and I make 200k$/year (wish I did) I don't see any reason whatsoever why we should share it and get 150k$ each. I worked for it, I earned it, I enjoy the fruits of that labor. If you can't afford the same, well tough but you have really no reason to complain about your economy. I can go a long way towards social programs, but when that difference is being presented as a problem in and by itself I get mighty angry. Seriously, what kind of signal is it that every slacker should get the same pay and same benefits? If that was true, I'd find the laziest job possible and do even less.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    62. Re:Guilty conscience? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is why forklift trucks run on gas, and why cars which have been adapted to run on gas are so much cleaner. Since the optimum mixture is somewhat lean, there is always a certain amount of excess oxygen in the exhaust and no carbon monoxide. On gas, the emissions are predominantly carbon dioxide and water.

      Because the optimum mixture for petrol is somewhat rich, you get quite a lot of carbon monoxide and a certain amount of soot.

    63. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus there will be very few of these... and they will not be used very often, I guess.

      Compare this to tree huggers, and integrate the ridicule function over the respective ensembles of Veyron owners and of those damn pennyless and filthy hippies. And voila : I bet tree-huggers are far more ridiculous as a whole.

    64. Re:Guilty conscience? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      The irony of course is the Veyron is probably better emissions wise than any 15 year old piece of shit the whining hippies drive.

      Of course, the big problem is that manufacturing the car takes vastly more energy and causes more pollution than the car will produce in its lifetime. You could produce a hybrid car that emitted pure oxygen and ice-cold mineral water, and it would still be less ecologically friendly than keeping a properly-maintained 15-year-old car on the road.

    65. Re:Guilty conscience? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Owning the world's most efficient production car?

    66. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another problem with Prius models: The battery weight and lack of horsepower on the drive train makes them obnoxiously slow. As in unable to accelerate to highway speeds of 65-70 without forcing people already on a highway to brake or swerve. For a city commute where one spends most of their time in bumper to bumper traffic, the Prius is ideal because it can happily sit at the light chains with the engine off. However, for highway trips, its max speed is barely above what almost all US interstates have posted, so at best, its a right lane relic. Expect on a long highway trip to see people give you the "Prius Pass", where they tailgate, pass with 1-2 inches of clearance, and shoot you the bird because the vehicle is physically unable to go common interstate traffic speeds (70-80 mph).

    67. Re:Guilty conscience? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Don't complain about taxes... 5.5% here in France is what we pay when buying necessity things like food. 19.6% is the norm for most things like a car... Cough your $400,000 please...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    68. Re:Guilty conscience? by selven · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heirs aren't nearly as powerful these days as in the old aristocratic tradition. Some people aren't leaving as much money to their children (yes I know 2 people != a trend but that alone is $80 billion) and there's the effect that people who get their fortune without hard work tend to lose it very quickly.

    69. Re:Guilty conscience? by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Depends, is your pure oxygen/mineralwater mobile going to be maintained on the road for 15 years too?

    70. Re:Guilty conscience? by Poorcku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yeah but where does the power come from? the plug? electric vehicles are not the future, because you will have to charge your vehicle for 10 hours just to get 200 km. no thanks. this is like taking two steps back. the future is around here and my guess it is the hydrogen. Honda is the only vehicle manufacturer that BETS its life on hydrogen. and after the decisions they made so far i think they might just make it.

      --
      I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
    71. Re:Guilty conscience? by selven · · Score: 1

      And that steel was itself mined somewhere, so yes you can technically trace any and all costs to labor costs.

    72. Re:Guilty conscience? by houghi · · Score: 1

      You can call it stupid. However perhaps you spend a certain amount of your income on things other people who have less call stupid.

      How many clothes could you still wear and yet you buy new ones. And I am not talking about walking around in rags. Or a new cellphone. Or the most stupid thing in the world: bottled water.

      If I would have several hundred millions to spend on fun, I would not buy it, as I have no interest in owning one. I would perhaps spend it on other things you think are stupid.

      Just because they spend money on things you would not spend it on does not make it stupid. It just shows you are different.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    73. Re:Guilty conscience? by oliderid · · Score: 1

      The moral argument is this. Money indirectly represent resources. Buying expensive toys is wasting disproportionate amount of said resources on yourself, excluding the others. We have words for that - egoism, and egotism.

      And then

      ...Now there's a line to draw, obviously. Where you draw that is subjective - some people believe that buying an iPhone is highly immoral when there are e.g. starving people in Africa. I don't buy into that, among other things, because I don't believe in non-starving Africa in foreseeable future no matter the resources spent on that

      So basically you draw the line when you can afford it and you call it a waste of money when you can't.

      IPhone is your own form of luxury (or a similar product) , you don't need it, you know the price is ridiculously high. There are many phones with similar features costing half the price. But you want it.

      Such kind of cars mean roughly 0.00001% of the whole car's market. I bet that Iphone sales in absolute term means more waste than Bugatti sales. So if you are really serious about waste, first ban Iphones.

    74. Re:Guilty conscience? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Makes no difference. It would need to be maintained and on the road for 150 years before it offset the energy cost of making it.

    75. Re:Guilty conscience? by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      First, most people have at least one significant other who shares their riches. This fact alone means about 50% of the people with super spending power did not earn it.

      Hey, Melinda earned it - she worked on Microsoft Bob !

      --
      Squirrel!
    76. Re:Guilty conscience? by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Informative

      We're not arrogant. We're angry. Angry that such engineering talent went into solving a problem that didn't need to be solved instead of the very real problems that do need to be solved.

      Well, the thing is that the new and expensive stuff they use in the Veyron will be available in "normal" cars down the road. To me, Veyron has two roles:

      a) A piece of engineering art.

      b) testbed for future technologies

      First one goes without saying. And so does the second one. VW has spent A LOT of resources on coming up with new and better ways at making the Veyron. The have had to solve problems that were literally unheard of in other cars. And the thing is that those solutions will trickle down to cars that you and I will be driving in the future.

      Take the Mercedes S-class for example. It's the car that gets the latest and greatest technologies Mercedes has developed, and it costs a lot of money. But those technologies then become available in other cars as well. But the first car to have that cutting edge technology is going to cost quite a bit. Like the Veyron does. As does the S-class. Those cars make those technologies more mainstream, and they can then be brought over to cheaper cars.

      Besides, building the greatest car in the world is a positive thing in on itself, and for that I applaud VW.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    77. Re:Guilty conscience? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      if you can afford it, you already pay enough taxes to support a small mid-American city

      I call BS. If you can afford this car, you can afford enough accountants to ensure that you pay as little tax as possible, which in some cases, means the government actually pays you to be incredibly rich.

    78. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I don't about America, but here in europe, a city car has usually about 60cv (and yes, that is enough to make it run). So, the cheapest, fastest and more fuel-eficient car I had driven so far is the PSA-Toyota gruop's Toyota Aygo/Citroen C1/Peugeot 107. Most will laugh at this cars (oh my god, a 1.0l engine, with only 65cv, and so small and ugly!?), but please, before jumping into conclusions, go figure it out! Btw, I have done 190km/h in one of those, it was stable, not shacking around, not drinking fuel like a maniac, and carrying an old Compaq Proliant server in the back (which in fact, took the whole both :p )

    79. Re:Guilty conscience? by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Amazing. Absolutely amazing!

    80. Re:Guilty conscience? by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      Um... I'm guessing the electricity comes from the internal combustion engine the prius has.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    81. Re:Guilty conscience? by jalefkowit · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you mean "fruitful" in the sense of "be fruitful and multiply" -- i.e., go get yourself laid -- buying a Bugatti Veyron is probably the most fruitful thing you could possibly do ;-)

    82. Re:Guilty conscience? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      That's the most retarded argument I've ever heard.

      If we (US and EU) don't cut our emissions, what right have we to demand that they (China and India) do the same thing? Do you seriously expect developing nations to take the first step that the real polluters (us) refuse to take?

      Cut our own emissions first, then ask them to do the same.

    83. Re:Guilty conscience? by io333 · · Score: 1

      spending $2mil on a car gives the audi/vw folks a return on their tech investment, and they can roll that back into more r&d. lots of that tech eventually makes it down to the next gen vw. some of you are incredibly short sighted for supposed tech fans

    84. Re:Guilty conscience? by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      while the Prius/Hummer myth only has a grain of truth. I would still contend that the non-hybrid version of a Cobalt that gets 37 mpg is a better bet than a hybrid Prius.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    85. Re:Guilty conscience? by turtleAJ · · Score: 1

      We're not arrogant. We're angry. Angry that such engineering talent went into solving a problem that didn't need to be solved instead of the very real problems that do need to be solved.

      DAMN! YES! I'm also angry!
      Angry we are wasting money on these dumb cars!
      ARrghhh!!

      Excuse me, I'm off to the Moon colony in the newest version of the Apollo 32 rocket.

      /sarcasm

    86. Re:Guilty conscience? by bwalling · · Score: 1

      Well, then you don't have to worry. There are literally billions of people on this planet who are dying from "easily curable illnesses and such". At some point, we need to quit talking about the economy as if we're the only country on the planet (applicable in USA, I assume it's applicable in the other industrialized nations). Many of these other countries are in turmoil because rich white people exploited them at the point of a sword for hundreds of years and prevented them from developing.

    87. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, my question was not whether they have a responsibility to feed them. My question is whether you would feel the slightest guilty if you were in that situation.

      There was an episode of Dilbert (S01E11 - Charity) where they covered exactly that point.

      Wally: Alice, have you fulfilled your obligation to society?
      Alice: Yes, I signed up for payroll deduction. I like to give. I'm morally superior to Dilbert.
      Dilbert: That is so illogical. As long as there are starving people in the world you can't have money in the bank and still claim to be moral.
      Alice: There is ample precedent for my behavior. It is completely societally appropriate to give only as much as one can afford.
      Dilbert: You just bought six pairs of shoes that look exactly the same.
      Alice: That came out of my shoe budget.
      Dilbert: That shoe money could have fed a poor family for a year. What's so moral about letting people starve to death so that you can have extra shoes. ... I mean, until you give it all away, you're not more moral, you just feel less guilty.

      I agree with Dilbert. So, no, I wouldn't feel guilty in that situation at all.

    88. Re:Guilty conscience? by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      I fully agree with you. A high-mpg car that is non-hybrid (like the 155 HP Cobalt XFE which gets 37 mpg) is a better solution to a hybrid in most cases.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    89. Re:Guilty conscience? by l3v1 · · Score: 1

      And you'd certainly do more damage ecologically in a Prius.
      You're full of shit.


      So, who cares if he's full of it or not. The shit comes pouring down anyway when you start talking about Priuses in a thread about a Bugatti...

      --
      I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    90. Re:Guilty conscience? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's the "guilty conscience" wisecrack for? This thing is not only incredibly cool, but if you can afford it, you already pay enough taxes to support a small mid-American city. Get over it.

      The top ten taxpayers in 2000 (the last year I looked up) paid taxes on less than 50% of their income. Clearly, the poor bear a disproportionate tax burden, regardless of what percent of the taxes are paid by the rich. Hint: They own more of the country than they pay a percentage of the taxes. The guilty conscience wisecrack is there to indicate that this is a fucking useless car, a big fucking waste of money and energy that could better be spent almost anywhere else. How much energy is wasted every year so that some rich cock who probably got his money by crushing those beneath him can have a shiny penis substitute in his garage, that might get driven once or twice? I don't care if you think you earned the right to defile the planet or not, you didn't.

      I don't give a flying fuck HOW much you pay in taxes... as if economic activity was a valid measure of the worth of a man's soul. Money really can't buy you happiness, it only lets you rent a surrogate for a time. At the end of your lifetime you remember the things you did, not the things you own, but the economic reality of the world is that anyone who can afford one of these cars is effectively a mass murderer; their economic choices have likely led to the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands. ALL of us are harmed when needless manufacturing occurs! You do NOT have a right to go over 200 MPH!

      I guess the message here is remember Marie Antoinette.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    91. Re:Guilty conscience? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I fully agree with you. A high-mpg car that is non-hybrid (like the 155 HP Cobalt XFE which gets 37 mpg) is a better solution to a hybrid in most cases.

      37 MPG is not even remotely impressive. A 1989 CRX HF got 50 MPG freeway. A fucking Passat TDI Wagon gets over 40 if you put your foot in it constantly, and it's pretty peppy to boot. Try again! In addition, The recycling infrastructure for electric car batteries does not exist... unless you're talking about one that runs on traditional lead-plate batteries, like most people's VW conversions etc. NiMH batteries are not recycled in quantity, and most of them are just landfilled.

      Aside from the might-have-beens, it absolutely takes more energy to produce a Prius than a TDI Golf or Passat, both of which get better mileage. Clearly a TDI has a superior lifetime energy consumption than a Hybrid at this point.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    92. Re:Guilty conscience? by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      No it wouldn't give me the slightest moral twinge. I don't feel guilty. Sorry, but I don't. It's not in my blood. I can't be made to feel guilty for anything. Guilt is a very poor persuasive tool. You can try to make someone feel bad, but if you can't, what then? I believe everyone is equal, but when you try to put a guilt trip on someone, you are trying to say you are better than them in some fashion. Well, that's only in your eyes, and I'm sure someone could (try to) make you feel guilty for something as well. It's very easy when you have nothing to try to say what someone else should do with what they have. It's very easy to "spend someone else's money", yet in no way, shape, or form, should you have any say in the matter. If you earn it, you get to do with it what you want. No one should be "made" to do anything with it.

    93. Re:Guilty conscience? by Servants · · Score: 1

      I have no reason to doubt you

      I know you're trying to be polite, but you sound sort of gullible here. You should doubt *everyone*, especially if they're trying to make a political point.

      The actual plan is to limit the value of charitable tax deductions to 28% of the amount given, even if the giver is in a higher tax bracket (tax brackets max out at 35%). Plus, it's just a plan at this point and hasn't been passed by Congress.

      http://philanthropy.com/news/updates/7244/obama-plans-to-reduce-charitable-deduction-for-wealthy-donors

    94. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> and trying to pry money out of rich people directly is impossible

      Oh gee whilikers....what a 'tude! Ever think that maybe you're not the only one trying to "pry it out of" their hands - if I was in their position, I'd probably get a wee bit angry at all the folks reaching for something that they didn't earn too!

    95. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Furthermore, when are you geeks going to learn that your envy doesn't translate into my guilt?

    96. Re:Guilty conscience? by korbin_dallas · · Score: 1

      Bullocks.

      They did earn it.
      This class envy crap is going to destroy us all.

      People earn whatever they get. Even robbing a bank takes 'effort' stupid. Buying a lottery ticket takes 'effort' and 'risk'.

      $5million has never just fallen out of the sky into my lap.

      Get over the class envy crap, and get to work. Want to earn $5mil, do something with big risk. Working at Wal-Mart is not ever going to net you $5mil.

      Invent a new product, or service, or convince 5 million people to send you $1.

      Better yet, get into Politics, theres lots of money there. Or marry one of those Wal-Mart heirs. Did I say risk was involved?

      --
      They Live, We Sleep
    97. Re:Guilty conscience? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm awfully tired of this jealous-of-people-with-money attitude. They probably earned it.

      Probably not, if they have the disposable income to buy a Veyron. Behind every great fortune is a great crime. That's a fucking axiom because it deserves to be. They don't repeat it in the media, because the people in charge of media are criminals.

      More than likely they contribute vast sums to charitable causes so they don't have to pay taxes on those sums come death or tax day.

      Bull SHIT. As you go up the tax scale you pay a LOWER percentage of income on necessities, so you spend less taxes on them as well; you also get up into the level of the atmosphere where you can start writing things off, and paying even LESS taxes. Finally, most charities spend less than 65% of donations on actually doing things (in many cases it's below 20%) and many of them are actually a scam to wield power.

      If you want the cool stuff they get to have and experiences they get to have, earn it; don't get your jollies off telling THEM what to do with it.

      We all live here, and the only reason that mobs haven't descended on their houses with torches and pitchforks to redistribute their wealth is that there is a system of law which prevents it. There is no god-given/natural right to drive a supercar. In addition, most of those people didn't really earn it. I mean, the Bush family made their initial fortune knowingly funneling money to Hitler's SS... The system works on crime from the top down.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    98. Re:Guilty conscience? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      "We're angry"

      OK, I can understand that. (I also don't get the whole 'Prius is toxic' bit, either) But if you and your angry fellows are that angry, form a company that can afford those Veyron engineers to solve the problems you are angry at. I am angry at a lack of recycling, so I help out my local recycling center (recycles more than curb pickup) by informing people that there is a way to recycle more of their stuff. Basically, do something rather than yell at some random website.

      (And please try not to involve the government, they will most likely waste the money on riders for studying social squirrel behavior.)

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    99. Re:Guilty conscience? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Many of these other countries are in turmoil because rich white people exploited them at the point of a sword for hundreds of years and prevented them from developing.

      You really have to think a little farther than that, even; many of these countries are in turmoil deliberately created by others for their own profit. It is is the USA's best interest to keep Mexico's economy in the toilet, because little brown people will come across the border and pick lettuce for illegal wages (i.e. it's illegal to pay them that little.) Many of this nation's first military actions involved naval bombardment of towns in central america to force them to sell to United Fruit Company, now known as Bonita. Every time you eat a Bonita(tm)-brand banana, you are financing the murder and displacement of indigenous peoples that has been going on for two hundred years. And don't even fucking get me started on Diamonds; even if you buy a so-called fair trade diamond, you're supporting slavery and murder. Diamonds are a semi-precious stone, you just don't know it because DeBeers has them all.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    100. Re:Guilty conscience? by akadruid · · Score: 2, Informative

      The same company's R&D effort produced the VW 1l

      --
      "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
    101. Re:Guilty conscience? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ummm ... so you are saying that all of those poor people suffering from famine, war and disease in Africa are unfit to be parents?

      Yes. If you can't support children, you shouldn't have them. Having children to feed your own Hubris is creating a situation of child abuse before you even pop them out. As a sentient being you have a responsibility to control your own reproductive system.

      My question is whether you would feel the slightest guilty if you were in that situation.

      I would feel guilty and stupid. The people telling lies about condoms in Africa, though, are some of the most evil people on the planet. There are few people here I think deserve death, but they're on the list.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    102. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "cleaner than the air it breaths in" is an extraordinary claim, do you have any links? Otherwise I'd bet some PR person just calculated its emissions in a clean environment, then compared that to the base level in large cities, that achievement is still good but not as impressive as your initial claim.

    103. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, you're a control freak. You're proud when you force someone else to follow your agenda, via coercion without remuneration from yourselves. You're angry when people put their energy, passion and skills into something other than your agenda. And like all control reaks, you're a hypocrite, your agenda applies only to others. You do not feel the need to reduce your own emissions; your lust for moral superiority is satisfied as long as you are forcing others to make the sacrifices.

    104. Re:Guilty conscience? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you're "super rich" all that money invested gets you is more money. If you spend it on fun toys.. you get to have the fun toys.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    105. Re:Guilty conscience? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      . The type of people who "can afford it" are the type of people who pay almost nothing. Hell even Warren Buffet [google.com] (who pays 17% tax whilst his assistant pays 30%) and Bill Gates (Sr.) [pbs.org] have been campaigning against the unfairness of how little they pay.

      No they haven't. They've been using their own payment as an argument for raising how much YOU pay. If they really thought they weren't paying enough.... they'd pay more. It's not like the government doesn't accept donations.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    106. Re:Guilty conscience? by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1

      some would consider owning an altair back in 1975 at a cost of $650 was insane considering to most people it was "a box with blinking lights" to most people the Veyron is little more than a box with blinking lights in that sense. i'm not saying its the most wonderful thing but people pay ridiculous sums of money for lots of things, painting, wine, houses, clothes, food, all of these things at this level of cost are considered art, and sheerly on somebody prerogative are vastly more expensive than their counterparts. there is no quantifiable measure that makes a Van Gogh, a Rembrandt, a Picasso or a Pollack worth the millions that are paid for them. a Bugatti, any Bugatti, is widely considered a work of art. each one is a handcrafted masterpiece of engineering and design. there are ways to quantify a Bugatti but none of those capture its value in the eyes of an art collector, rather the value is garnered through its intrinsic beauty via its design language. some may say that art is in and of itself a waste of oney, but for many art is a source of inspiration, and inspiration is priceless. perhaps you are inspired without it, good for you, someday, if you're lucky you'll be inspired _by_ it.

      --
      i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
    107. Re:Guilty conscience? by wfolta · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, no. The Prius -- especially the 2010 which I bought -- accelerates well: you'll be swerving around a minivan or a Hummer full of kids before you swerve around me. And I have absolutely no problems keeping up with traffic on US interstates.

      You're either terribly opinionated or you're reflecting on how some Prius drivers DRIVE their vehicles (as opposed to what the car is capable of). In fact, it is my experience that the SLOWEST cars, the ones that leave 20-car gaps in front of them in heavy traffic and go 30 MPH on merging ramps, are non-hybrid cars being driven by people who evidently are trying to get hybrid mileage out of them. (Or who got a manual transmission and hate it.)

      Yep, you can drive a Prius 70-80 and still be getting 40 MPG.

    108. Re:Guilty conscience? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      People with the wealth and connections to get a car like this don't live in Wisconsin, they live in Caribbean islands, European principalities or the middle east, where they definitely don't pay tax, and most definitely didn't earn their money.

    109. Re:Guilty conscience? by guisar · · Score: 1

      OK- how about this- http://www.caterham.co.uk/. A caterham weighs less than a ton, out accelerates and out handles with the BASE engine about everything on the road and costs less than just about any sports car, much less supercar. It's reliable and perfect if you live in an area without a lot of snow or cold weather.

    110. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try breathing in your own exhaust... you will be dead in a matter of minutes. Well tuned modern cars put out CO2 and H2O which is pretty close to what you breath out.

    111. Re:Guilty conscience? by mevets · · Score: 1

      I think guilty conscience is fair enough. Forget the car, suppose I built a shrine to honour myself that burned 10000 barrels of oil per day.

      The ratio of ecological damage to utility (~0 in this case) is the first cause of shame.

      That my excessive consumption is increasing the cost of a useful commodity (oil) to others that can put it to better use is the second.

      That there is some moral obligation - due to the innocents murdered to secure oil supplies - to not waste this specific commodity is the third.

      The "I've paid for it" mentality is a poor substitute for any sort of civil obligation; the demonstrated lack of obligation is the fourth.

      These apply to situations from not overeating to not idling your vehicle. Just because "you can" does not mean "you should".

    112. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If you make 100k$/year and I make 200k$/year (wish I did) I don't see any reason whatsoever why we should share it and get 150k$ each. I worked for it, I earned it, I enjoy the fruits of that labor.

      Agreed.

      The difference is that I can easily understand and justify someone earning 2x as much as myself. For that matter, I can justify somone earning 100x as much!

      But I cannot understand nor justify someone earning 10^6 as much as average. It shouldn't be possible; the fact that it is points to a flaw in the system. Now, it is an unfortunate flaw, but I don't see any reasonable way of fixing it without breaking the system, and I'd rather keep the latter intact.

    113. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So basically you draw the line when you can afford it and you call it a waste of money when you can't.

      Not really (among other things, I don't have an iPhone, nor a desire to own one).

      I mostly draw the line where most in my society can afford it. And, hell, most here - even those on welfare - could afford an iPhone if they really covet it, judging by their spending habits!

    114. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      spending $2mil on a car gives the audi/vw folks a return on their tech investment

      You have a point, but it's still not quite true. Most of that $2mil gives Audi/VW owners and major shareholders some extra cash to buy Bugatti (or whatever they fancy) of their own.

    115. Re:Guilty conscience? by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, rich people are the lousiest charitable givers.

      That is false. Actually, as a percentage of income, the middle class is the worst. The poor give away between 4 and 5%, the rich between 3 and 4%. The middle class gives much less than either. Unfortunately, all classes are starkly divided along the lines of givers and nongivers. While the average poor person is much more likely to be a nongiver, the averages are "fixed" by the one-in-four poor person who gives with extraordinary generosity.

      This will be unpopular here, but the fact is that the group that gives the most is religious conservatives (disclaimer: I am religious but not conservative). And before anyone tries to negate the giving of the religious because a lot of that money is tithes, etc., understand that religious conservative people are actually more likely to give to secular charities than secular people, despite the fact that secular households earn about 16% more on average than religious households.

    116. Re:Guilty conscience? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      You have seen a Hummer full of kids? All I have ever seen is one person in them who thinks they need it in case they might want to tow something some day or might go off paved road. My 4 door sedan (BMW 540i) has seen more truck like use than most Hummers, but after last year tearing off one of the mufflers while hunting (almost high and centered it) I decided to get another vehicle better suited to hunting in remote areas of northern Minnesota.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    117. Re:Guilty conscience? by maxume · · Score: 1

      You have to have the infrastructure sitting there to do it, but even today's batteries can be recharged in less than an hour (the infrastructure consists of something able to push that required watts, for example, a big battery or industrial connect).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    118. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "standard" steel in a car body is interstitial free (IF) or extra deep draw steel (EDDS) and contain at most a few parts per million nickel. Adding nickel affects the formability adversely and nickel is expensive. Nickel is a major element in stainless steels.

    119. Re:Guilty conscience? by REBloomfield · · Score: 1

      ALERT! Difference of opinion expressed! For god sake, what's with mods these days?

    120. Re:Guilty conscience? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Yes, the millions of dollars of tax that Warren Buffet has paid consists of 'little' or 'nothing'.

      You are being at least as disingenuous as you are accusing the mainstream media of being.

      And I realize that Buffett has paid very little tax compared to the amount of wealth he has, but you are using phrases like 'do not pay' to describe the fact that he has paid more in taxes (most years!) than most people will generate in income in their entire lives.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    121. Re:Guilty conscience? by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      5 million is a lot, enough to afford a nice $200K Ferrari, but a $2M Veyron? No.

      Jeez, times are tougher than I thought. These days five million dollars can't buy you something worth two million.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    122. Re:Guilty conscience? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Since you are deciding for everyone, can you make a list of guilt free alcohol brands for me?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    123. Re:Guilty conscience? by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      Why so angry? ... Why so serious?

      I think you answered your own question: "because we can".

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    124. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But did those same catalytic converters ever work in Denver?

      No wonder people in LA and Oakland wanted themm introduced.

    125. Re:Guilty conscience? by MojoRilla · · Score: 1

      Best part about this is the name of the guy who wrote Dust to Dust. Art Spinella. Classic.

    126. Re:Guilty conscience? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      At $2.1m they don't call it smuggling, they call it negotiating - do you want me to buy this car in WI? well, if so, I only want to pay $10K in taxes, otherwise I'll buy it in Oregon....

    127. Re:Guilty conscience? by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      My experience this weekend/holiday doesn't ken with your comment. I drove for more than twenty hours over the course of four days, and encountered quite a few Priuses on the highway. We noticed them because we had been discussing hybrids so we were watching for them. Out of the dozens of them that we saw, I didn't encounter any that seemed to have any difficulty maintaining highway speeds. In fact, because I set my cruise control to 65 to save on gas, we got passed by quite a number of them (again, we noticed because we were joking about getting passed by Priuses while we were driving a gas-hungry minivan). I just didn't notice that the Prius had any problems with normal driving at all, and as I said, we were actually watching for them.

      Virg

    128. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of that affordable technology trickles down from the extravagant, Car technology often comes from the super cars or F1 advances in driving.

    129. Re:Guilty conscience? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      You could, but it would still be idiotic. Spending altogether too much on luxury cars has no significant effect on the amount of food available or the price at which it's sold. If anything, such behavior should be encouraged--given the GP's obvious goals--as it redistributes wealth from the super-rich to those who designed and manufactured the vehicle, along with all its parts and raw materials. Given that their second choice wasn't "donate it all to charity", the trade in luxury goods is one of the more efficient ways to close the gap between rich and poor, the more luxurious the better. The higher the mark-up the more efficiently the wealth is transferred.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    130. Re:Guilty conscience? by shiftless · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How much energy is wasted every year so that some rich cock who probably got his money by crushing those beneath him can have a shiny penis substitute in his garage, that might get driven once or twice? I don't care if you think you earned the right to defile the planet or not, you didn't.

      LOL, the funny and ironic part about your stupid post is that according to someone in a third world country, YOU are the rich and wasteful fuck driving around in your shiny "penis" substitute (instead of a clapped out Yugo.) Got forbid you've got a 2nd car, a nice one that you keep put up to drive occasionally. Get off your fucking high horse.

    131. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A neurosurgeon has a high-risk, high-skill, high-pay job, one of the ones anybody would put on the top of the heap. A quick search reveals even they don't make enough (median of ~$470k/yr) to buy this car unless it's their sole extravagance around about retirement age. If you ever see somebody who owns one of these things, you can be safe in assuming you're looking at a crook, a parasite, or both. It's not class envy, it's knowing the value of a dollar.

    132. Re:Guilty conscience? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      These apply to situations from not overeating to not idling your vehicle. Just because "you can" does not mean "you should".

      And the corollary to this is just because some opinionated douchebag on Slashdot doesn't approve doesn't mean you shouldn't.

    133. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Do something with big risk? Gambling doesn't count as "earning", to my mind.

      Once you get into the super-rich range, your wealth has bugger all correlation to effort.

    134. Re:Guilty conscience? by pete_norm · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, i don't really care about percentage of earnings. What charities want to get is the most money possible. I really prefer getting 2 % of earnings from someone who earns 200000$ than 10% from someone who earns 20000. In the end, what matters is the real money given. The percentage of income discourse is just a way to try to pry more money from the rich (using guilt).

      It's called charity. People should be able to give whatever amount they want to whoever they want. And no one should have a right to say a damn thing about it.

    135. Re:Guilty conscience? by Azghoul · · Score: 1

      Rock the hell on, man.

      If these guys weren't working on a slick-as-shit Veyron, they'd be bored to tears somewhere else. Good for them.

      And good for anyone who's able to achieve fun things and make a living doing it. The idea that we all have to be "productive" for society? Fuck that.

    136. Re:Guilty conscience? by StellarFury · · Score: 1

      Seems like everyone's up in arms about the car costing 2.1 million dollars, or the engineering being used to solve problems that are pointless to solve.

      I'm just pissed that the world is touting this car as the "greatest car ever made" - and it has sub-Hummer fuel efficiency (~7 city/11 hwy). I don't give a damn about emissions handling if the thing is going to eat gas like Takeru Kobayashi eats hot dogs. Even worse, the article doesn't even MENTION the thing's fuel efficiency. When are all these rich bastards and the people who worship/want to be them (as well as the assholes wasting their degrees in mechanical engineering designing stupid shit for them) going to realize that gas is a finite resource?

    137. Re:Guilty conscience? by tsa · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    138. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a computer...

    139. Re:Guilty conscience? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen isn't an energy source - it's a battery. Electric cars require a power plant to charge the batteries. Hydrogen cars require a power plant to power the the facility that manufactures the hydrogen. (And a far more complex infrastructure to move the hydrogen to the end user.)

    140. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I could afford that car, I'd feel awesome. And two chicks at the same time. And more than feel them.

    141. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This doesn't jive with my experience. I have five friends I can think of who have net-worth of over 5M. Each of them gives more than half of their yearly realized earnings to charity. However, I doubt a single one of them would give cash to a panhandler or respond to solicitations from charitable organizations. They do significant research about various organizations that work with causes they value and give them large sums.

      Rich people are better at making their money effective. That's why their rich.

    142. Re:Guilty conscience? by danomac · · Score: 1

      I dare you to suck on the tailpipe of any internal combustion vehicle. Please have paramedics on standby before you do.

      While I agree this is a really stupid thing to do, sometime last year I read a news article saying someone tried to off himself with the gases in his new green Civic and it failed. It made him really, really sick, but it didn't kill him. I can't seem to find that article online, so I might have read it in one of the local papers here.

    143. Re:Guilty conscience? by nidarus · · Score: 1

      'til recently, high wages were justified with the insane responsibility managers have

      I don't know about justified... For me, it always seemed like a bit of nonsensical propaganda. A surgeon (who probably makes a comfortable living, but it's peanuts compared to what some managers make) has a lot more personal responsibility, and requires much more unique skills and education to boot.

    144. Re:Guilty conscience? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There is a problem with his comment. He says that he only pays 17.7% on his income of $46 million and doesn't do any tax planning or tax shelters, yet the Federal tax rate for that would be 35%(http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm). So either he doesn't know what he pays in taxes, he is lying about his tax planning, or he is confusing (on purpose?) income tax with capital gains tax.
      As another poster points out, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, Sr are arguing that other people don't pay enough tax. The article you referred to about Bill Gates, Sr was about inheritance tax. Of course he doesn't care about inheritance tax, his son is worth more than he is, and has already taken steps to insure that the inheritance tax won't effect his heirs.
      As I have mentioned previously, the truly wealthy don't pay inheritance tax. They set up a "Charitable Trust" that pays a stipend to their heirs. I knew someone in a situation like that. His father and uncle had sold a large family owned company and set up such a Trust with the proceeds. The Trust paid an "allowance" to all of their heirs while the fathers were still alive. When their fathers die, there will be no inheritance tax, because the money is held by the Trust.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    145. Re:Guilty conscience? by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't compare a 1987 CRX since it had no amenities or safety features. But the new VWs or even non-hybrid Toyota's are better. I personally bought a 2009 Corolla and I drive it like its a race car and it still gets 32 MPG, but I'm redlining it every time I shift. A Prius costs $22,000 and a Corolla costs $15,000, you can buy a lot of gas for $7,000 and the Corolla looks cooler.

    146. Re:Guilty conscience? by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Taxes are charity. So the wealthiest by default are the most "generous". Who else is paying for Social Security, Medicade, Medicare, your child's schooling etc?

    147. Re:Guilty conscience? by nidarus · · Score: 1

      You can say that to everyone who owns a car.

      Wow, +5 Insightful... lots of angry middle-class moderators today.

      Anyway, that's not really true. Even a homeless guy who tells a starving person to "stop being so jealous" is an incredible asshole. But driving a $2M toy while doing so brings the douchebaggery to epic levels. Replace it with a beat-up piece of crap from the late '80s, and it wouldn't have the same effect.

    148. Re:Guilty conscience? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      But by building the Veyron, the engineers found problems that they wouldn't have found by building small hatchbacks. Ideas then are refined, and trickles down to normal roadcars.

      For example ?

    149. Re:Guilty conscience? by Splab · · Score: 1

      Where in my post do I claim you can survive by only breathing the exhaust? And we all on a daily basis "suck the exhaust of a internal combustion vehicle", be breathing air in a city so whats your point?

      Just because air is cleaner (and you even agree on that) doesn't mean you can live by it, we do after all need oxygen and I have at no point claimed the air was magically converted into the right mixture of oxygen, I just said the air coming out was cleaner than the air going in, but hey, who am I to correct your so insightful rant?

    150. Re:Guilty conscience? by wfolta · · Score: 1

      Bad form replying to myself, but...

      I think that people who defend non-hybrid cars on Slashdot should have their Geek Card revoked. They're defending a century-old technology that does not have a wide performance range, coupled to a century-old technology that, through a hideously complex set of gears, extends the performance band to tolerable limits.

      Versus a car that has a gasoline engine that has a different power cycle than 95% of the other cars on the road and not one but TWO electric motor/generators, combined with an elegantly simply mechanical device so that all three can work together in any combination. Each of these is purpose-built for a task, so the combination is not only more efficient than a single, inflexible engine, but each part is subject to less stress making it more reliable.

      Not to mention that the car has a Cd of 0.25 and you can enter it and start it with only a Star-Trek-like device in your pocket. Starships don't have keys!

      Even if it was inferior in most ways, the pure geek factor of a hybrid should win in Slashdot every time. Those who disagree need to see if perhaps they haven't been drinking too much management juice, which causes your technicals to shrivel and fall off.

      Next thing you know, they'll be defending Intel GMA over dedicated graphics chips.

    151. Re:Guilty conscience? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Someone earning $100k uses that $50k car for their day to day living.

      No-one is buying a Veyron to nip down to the shops, drive to work, and take the kids to soccer.

      Would you spend ca. 40% of your net worth on a toy ?

    152. Re:Guilty conscience? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You are putting the bar too high for rich, you are going directly from rich to richest as if there is no difference.

      Take the CEO of a company, he will probably make between 250 to 500 grand per year, have a wife who makes similar money and gets stock options in the company they oversee. So lets do some math there, we will go on the low side and say both spouses make $250k each, that half a million a year. So they invest $200k per year and those investments make roughly 15% over 15 years. That's roughly 11.2 million in interest and savings alone after 5 years. Then they have their stock options, suppose those were originally valued at 50-100k per year when they purchased them at 40%, lets say now they are worth 3 times as much at the end of 15 years, you are now looking at almost 2.2 million in stock options taken alone.

      Now, in case your not following this and letting your class envy and rage do the thinking for you, here is the breakdown on a low end estimate- at the end of 15 years, a husband and wife could amass a collective total of almost 14 million in savings. Now CEOs aren't generally hired right off the street unless they are the owners of the company and build it from small beginnings. None of this takes into consideration any savings from before they became CEO, or from before they were married and none of it takes into consideration that it is more likely they will be making more then 250K a year. You bring up a neurosurgeon who makes roughly 470k a year, imagine if he married a wife making similar money from another honest profession like being a gastro-intestinal surgeon. Now you have a combined income of about 800k-1 million a year. And your going to tell me they couldn't save 2.1 million to blow on a toy?

    153. Re:Guilty conscience? by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      I call BS, this is a tech site you should understand the "early adopter" mantra. So no, we need people to spend 2 million on a car, not only is it not wrong it is a very much needed part of society. The 2 million on that car is some of the best spent money in society. It pays for better technology which makes everyones life better, maybe not this year, maybe not in 20 years, but the tech used to build this car will help with the building of future cars.

    154. Re:Guilty conscience? by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      What's the "guilty conscience" wisecrack for? This thing is not only incredibly cool, but if you can afford it, you already pay enough taxes to support a small mid-American city. Get over it.

      Is this an incredibly cool engineering achievement? Yes.

      Would this car be an absolute wonder and joy to drive? I can't imagine not.

      That said, I find the existence of such a thing to be an ugly disappointment. In my mind, it all boils down to a value judgment:

      On the one hand, we have the incremental pleasure that the owners of these cars will have vs. them driving around a ~$100,000 car.

      On the other hand, there is the opportunity cost for investing that kind of money into something that helps society.

      For some (including me), the whole argument boils down to these two potential options. If you can accept that the former is something preferable to the latter through some kind of convoluted logic, fine. I can't.

    155. Re:Guilty conscience? by tsa · · Score: 1

      What has that to do with my remark, or even the conversation here? Never was anything like you just described suggested. Just face it: some people have more than other people. What people do with their money is teir business, not yours. Someone who drives this Bugatti telling someone who drives a Ford Focus to 'stop being jealous' is NOT a total asshole. And there are people in the world who can afford to own a car AND give to charity.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    156. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      2 million spent on this car payed for tech that is necessary to make an open-top, gasoline powered (110L/100km!) car that can do 400km/h. It's not a practical requirement by any measure. It's like spending lots of money on research needed to make a steam-engine powered race car in 1900 - probably possible for that much $$$, but totally worthless.

    157. Re:Guilty conscience? by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 1

      The problem is not the Prius, it's the driver. I have an '07 and have no problem at all maintaining 75mph even in the mountains, with four adults plus luggage. It'll do 90+, no problem. Acceleration is very good. When passing a semi, I'm usually going about 80 when even with the cab (starting at 50-55). While the peak hp is only about 110 (gas plus electric), the electric motor puts out 258 ft-lbs of torque (a standard '09 Ford F-150 pickup has 294).
      I know a lot of other people with Prius (Toyota says that's the plural) and they all agree that that they have no problem going fast (usually faster than other traffic). You must be seeing people who are staring at the mileage display and are ignoring the traffic around them.

    158. Re:Guilty conscience? by nidarus · · Score: 1

      Never was anything like you just described suggested.

      Um, unless Slashdot is misbehaving again, that's the post you replied to:

      Imagine yourself stepping out of your $2.1M toy and saying that to someone whose children have died of starvation. Does that give you a slight moral twinge?

      Now, I see how my reply is appropriate, but how does your example of two car owners talking to each other, have anything to do with it?

    159. Re:Guilty conscience? by eepok · · Score: 1

      I concur! I spent a couple summers raising money for my school's grants via mail and telemarketing while an undergrad. By and large, those who gave most frequently were people with multiple children and/or were involved in education (teachers, low-level administrators, etc.). So many times they would summarize their rationale in such statements as, "I know the value of a good education and also know that costs are going up. I wish my $250 could be more."

      Doctors, bankers, and businessmen on the other hand *rarely* made contributions and when they did, it was typically $50 or less.

      Then there are the mega-corps and foundations that make major contributions... but the corporation just pass the cost of those donations on to the consumers (Thanks for the grants, everyone!) and the foundations do their own fund-raising as necessary.

    160. Re:Guilty conscience? by tsa · · Score: 1

      Oops sorry, I already forgot part of the conversation contained just what you described. I even answered to that with a remark that got +5 Insightful. My sincere apologies. If I could delete my post I would have done so.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    161. Re:Guilty conscience? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Whatever happened to "because we can" as a mantra for why we build things that are completely unneeded? I'm not talking about making a catapult that launches criminals into a strong piano wire mesh, cutting them into tiny pieces that will then rain down into the crocodile cage at the local zoo.

      Uh, that sounds like something useful to me.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    162. Re:Guilty conscience? by tsa · · Score: 1

      I was babbling with my brain switched off. I'm very sorry. It won't happen again, I promise to do my best.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    163. Re:Guilty conscience? by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's great to harp on the rich because their lives are so much easier. I guess you don't realize how much they actually do pay in taxes. Here's a page near the top of the Google results for "united states percentage of taxes paid relative to income".
      http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

      That page is 9 years old but it's pretty illuminating. In particular, the introduction points out these three facts:
      * The top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
      * The top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
      * The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay nothing or almost nothing.

      The intro then goes on to say that tax breaks are often put in a negative light because they'll benefit the rich the most. And why would that be? Because the rich are paying almost all of the taxes.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    164. Re:Guilty conscience? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      The type of people who "can afford it" are the type of people who pay almost nothing. Hell even Warren Buffet (who pays 17% tax whilst his assistant pays 30%) and Bill Gates (Sr.) have been campaigning against the unfairness of how little they pay.

      The government accepts voluntary tax payments. They can put up or shut up.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    165. Re:Guilty conscience? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Even robbing a bank takes 'effort' [...] get to work.

      I love ellipses.

    166. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet the AWD Veyron handles better in the snow then a Ford Escape.

    167. Re:Guilty conscience? by Spoke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do understand that your average commute only uses 15-35hp, right?

      I think you grossly underestimate the amount of power that the "average" commuter uses on a daily basis.

      Most commuters will use at least 60+hp accelerating away from a stoplight. Double that if they're driving a heavy truck/SUV.

      Sure, once they're up to to speed, say 65-70mph, horsepower requirements are only about 25-50 depending on the vehicle (quick google search reveals that a Corvette probably uses about 25hp at 65mph and 40hp at 70mph). But add any acceleration at those speeds, say to pass someone and you're going to need a lot more power.

      Yes, downsizing the engine in a gas-electric hybrids does let them eke out a bit more fuel economy. But the real gains in fuel economy with the best gas-electric hybrids come from running the engine on the Atkinson cycle instead of the typical Otto cycle. While the Atkinson cycle is significantly more efficient, peak power output does suffer compared to the Otto cycle (an optimization as you say).

    168. Re:Guilty conscience? by welcher · · Score: 1

      So where are you getting your numbers from and how do you define the terms rich, poor and middle? According to the US Bureau of labour statistics http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/68456.html, the bottom 20% given about 4% of their income, the 20%-60% bracket give around 2.5% and the top two brackets give about 2%. You'll really need to reference your religious conservatives claim too.

    169. Re:Guilty conscience? by Spoke · · Score: 1

      I assume by "gas" you mean propane/LPG or natural gas. Yes, "gas" engines typically run very clean compared to their dirty "petrol" counter parts.

      However, that does not have anything to do with the air/fuel ratio.

      The stoichiometric ratio of all three fuels are very similar, with petrol being 14.7/1, propane 15.5/1 and natural gas 16.8/1. The stoich ratio is widely considered to be the optimum ratio.

      At air fuel mixtures slightly richer than stoich, CO and HC emissions go up.

      At air fuel mixtures slightly leaner than stoich, NOx emissions go up.

      This is true for all the fuels - propane/natural gas just have the benefit of being a much cleaner fuel to start out with.

      At some point if you lean out the air/fuel mixture enough, combustion temps lower enough that NOx emissions start to drop (considered a lean-burn). However, extremely lean mixtures don't produce much power and are tricky to ignite reliably. Currently, one of the most effective method for lowering NOx emissions is the use of EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) which kind of "simulates" a lean-burn by pumping in oxygen depleted exhaust gas into the combustion chamber.

      Soot does increase significantly if you use an air/fuel ratio that is richer than stoich. And engines are often designed to run richer than stoich under high load because of the tendency for knock or preignition at high combustion temperatures - dumping in more fuel is a cheap way to cool the combustion chamber. But that does not mean that it has to be done - you could simply live with slightly less power output, instead.

    170. Re:Guilty conscience? by Spoke · · Score: 1

      You said that the air coming out of car exhaust is cleaner than the air in many cities.

      I said, that while in some aspects, car exhaust may be cleaner, it is no where near being clean enough to live on as there are other pollutants emitted in toxic quantities. I apologize for omitting the obvious lack of oxygen, but later stated that even with sufficient oxygen, the other pollutants in car exhaust will quickly make you ill or kill you.

      The air in a city has the benefit of being high diluted into relatively safe concentrations given a bit of time. Thankfully, most of the highly toxic pollutants either tend to fall out of the air (soot) or get broken down into less toxic forms (CO, NOx) relatively quickly so they build up into highly toxic concentrations.

      In cities where air tends to stagnate (Los Angeles, Denver, Mexico City) it is quite easy to see the effects of air pollution from vehicles and the health of people with less than perfect respiratory systems suffer as a result.

    171. Re:Guilty conscience? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That's a good source of info. So it's only 7% tax on charitable contributions. Still a reduction, but not quite so drastic.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    172. Re:Guilty conscience? by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      I think that people who defend non-hybrid cars on Slashdot should have their Geek Card revoked. They're defending a century-old technology that does not have a wide performance range, coupled to a century-old technology that, through a hideously complex set of gears, extends the performance band to tolerable limits.
      Wow, taking your opinion to its logical conclusion, anyone working w/ linux should turn in their geek card. After all it's damn near 40 year old technology. As for you does not have a wide performance range did you mean diesels here, b/c my petrol engine idles at ~600 rpm and readlines at 7000. That's a pretty wide performance range. 6 speed manual transmission isn't that complex.
        Not to mention that the car has a Cd of 0.25 and you can enter it and start it with only a Star-Trek-like device in your pocket. Starships don't have keys!
      Wow, just about every luxury automanufacturer has this it's called comfort access. But hey if you want to glue some nacelles onto your car and call it a starship more power to you. Though I will point out the most ungeeky thing is to be a sanctimonious prick and start excluding others due to a difference of opinion.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    173. Re:Guilty conscience? by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 1

      You'll really need to reference your religious conservatives claim too.

      Given that this is a public Internet discussion forum where people spew all manner of opinion, conjecture and outright BS, I really don't think that I "need" to reference anything. I'm not a policy advocate, writing a book, nor is this my doctoral dissertation.

      However, since you didn't demand references from onecomplement's broad and anecdotal claims in the post I originally responded to, I'm hoping that my "religious conservative claim" might have gored one of your sacred oxen--thus I'm willing in this case. The following is a quote from Who Really Cares: America's Charity Divide; Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why it Matters by Arthur C Brooks:

      "First, imagine two people: One goes to church every week and strongly rejects the idea that it is the government's responsibility to redistribute income between people who have a lot of money and people who don't. The other person never attends a house of worship, and strongly believes that the government should reduce income differences. Knowing only these things, the data tell us that the first person will be roughly twice as likely as the second to give money to charities in a given year, and will give away more than one hundred times as much money per year (as well as fifty times more to explicitly nonreligious causes).

      The author apparently got his information from something called the 1996 General Social Survey. No, I didn't go back and read the actual survey and re-compute the numbers. As far as the other information about defining the terms rich, poor and middle class, you can read the book if you really care. You'll love it--it's heavily footnoted and has lots of documentation. I'm a lousy typist anyway.

    174. Re:Guilty conscience? by welcher · · Score: 1

      Sure, you can spout bullshit if you like and make up numbers but what is the point?

      Thanks for the Brooks reference. I've little opinion one way or the other on the relationship between church attendance and charity, but I do note that it is entirely consistent that the church attender in the given example would be more likely to give to charity than the other.

    175. Re:Guilty conscience? by hurfy · · Score: 1

      True, you can buy the car....just not the gas ;)

      lol, i wonder what the oil change and tune-up runs?

    176. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The toxicity of the Prius will come from it burning fossil fuel for the 100,000+ miles it is driven. The Veyron will probably never have more than 5000 miles put on it.

    177. Re:Guilty conscience? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Building that $2M car gave jobs to how many middle/upper middle income engineers, fabricators, machinists, etc. In fact since the Veyron project will likely earn VW very little money that's ALL it did, that and use a bit of physical resources (not much for the entire run of 300 vehicles).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    178. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Building that $2M car gave jobs to how many middle/upper middle income engineers, fabricators, machinists, etc.

      It's called the broken window fallacy.

      Pragmatically, it just means that work of all those people involved had been effectively wasted, while they could spend their time and skills working on much more important and useful projects.

    179. Re:Guilty conscience? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Of course, it's easy to make points like that when you only pay attention to income tax, and ignore all the other taxes out there. Income tax is one of the few taxes that is progressive - or in other words where people who make more money pay a greater percentage of their income as tax. Most other taxes - sales taxes, fuel taxes, property taxes, etc. are regressive, and the poor pay a much larger percentage of these taxes than the rich.

    180. Re:Guilty conscience? by afidel · · Score: 1

      How is this a broken window problem? A desired good was produced and people were gainfully employed to produce that good. Engineering advances were made which will likely help advance the state of the art in automotive design and manufacture which will eventually trickle down to more mundane cars. There was a time where aluminium blocks and multiple valves were the exclusive territory of exotic sports cars, today they are fairly standard issue and increase fuel economy even as we increase weight in other areas to increase safety and comfort.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    181. Re:Guilty conscience? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have a 1992 F250 Diesel and a 1982 Mercedes 300SD. Both are repair jobs, I'm rebuilding the former one. I've never bought a new car and I've actually saved several cars from the wreckers so in terms of energy expenditures in car-land I'm way ahead of someone driving a Yugo they bought new but that doesn't fix any vehicles. Both of my vehicles can run on biodiesel, and I'm currently working on making that actually happen (right now I just need to get the Methanol home.) My next vehicle will hopefully be an electric mountain bike. I work with the Ford. The Mercedes has better operating energy efficiency than the Yugo. You can go piss up a rope.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    182. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How is this a broken window problem? A desired good was produced and people were gainfully employed to produce that good.

      It's just a very, very expensive toy. I really don't know how to put it simpler than that.

      Engineering advances were made which will likely help advance the state of the art in automotive design and manufacture which will eventually trickle down to more mundane cars.

      They won't. If you RTFA, the main difficulty of producing this car was to let it reach the desired top speed - in excess of 400kph - in a car with open top, without damaging the car body. In order to be able to reach such speeds, the car has absolutely ridiculous parameters - such as fuel economy worse than 100L/100km. This sort of thing is absolutely pointless - you simply do not really need a car that goes that fast, much less an open top one (at that point, switching to an air vehicle makes a lot of sense if you need that speed in an individual vehicle). The only reason why you'd want this in a car is as a proof-of-concept kind of thing - "oh, look what I can do" - or as a shiny toy (with the same explanation!). Ergo, most of the research money is really just wasted on research that no-one needs for any practical purposes. It's a "just for fun" kind of thing, except that there's insane money wasted on that fun.

    183. Re:Guilty conscience? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Most commuters will use at least 60+hp accelerating away from a stoplight. Double that if they're driving a heavy truck/SUV.

      That's where regenerative breaking comes into play. Regenerative systems will recover 80+% of energy otherwise wasted through breaking. Extra power needed for acceleration becomes irrelevant, and you're back to only needing to size the generator for cruise.

    184. Re:Guilty conscience? by Spoke · · Score: 1

      80% is quite optimistic, IMO, especially considering that charging a NiMH battery is at best 66% efficient and most motors/generators are top out a bit over 90% in ideal conditions.

      It seems to be considered that getting half that (40%) is quite good these days. (though somehow I've seen multiple claims that the 2010 Ford fusion is able to capture up to 94% of all braking energy, I have a hard time believing it for the previously mentioned reasons!).

      Hopefully once more manufacturers start using lithium batteries which have near negligible charging losses 80% will start to become a reality.

      You also have to deal with the fact that in all production hybrids today, the motor/generators/batteries are far too underpowered to produce the power required to accelerate with the demands of your typical driver.

    185. Re:Guilty conscience? by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

      The rich are no more generous than the middle class for social security. 2009 - 6.2% on earnings up to $106,800. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10003.html

    186. Re:Guilty conscience? by afidel · · Score: 1

      So you don't think there will be a future need for strong, light materials and methods of using said materials to manufacture automobiles? Really?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    187. Re:Guilty conscience? by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Considering what a potential buyer of a Bugatti Veyron is compensating for, they may find they struggle with the mechanics of being fruitful and multiplying.

    188. Re:Guilty conscience? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      I'll agree that the drive trains in current hybrids are terrible. They give you two marginal engines, that even combined don't amount to a significant amount of power. They give you a complex transmission and linkage that introduces a lot of loss into the system.

      Induction motors operate at 90% over a wide range, and can hit better than 95% under high load. Motors could be put directly on the axle with a single speed gearbox to reduce transmission loss (Tesla does this). Supercaps could be used for a short term buffer with next to no energy loss. 25lbs would be plenty to take full size sedan or midrange SUV from highway speeds, to a stop, and back again.

    189. Re:Guilty conscience? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How much of that money was spent on research in such materials? My guess is, not a lot. Percentage-wise, it's still mostly waste.

      If it was an electric car at least, it would be another matter entirely, even at $2mil sticker - I could believe then that noticeable part of research would actually be reused in the future. But this thing is a gas guzzler, and engineered as such.

    190. Re:Guilty conscience? by Spoke · · Score: 1

      There are 3 hybrid drive trains in use today:

      The Toyota HSD / Ford Hybrid system which uses a planetary gear and two induction motors to create a CVT transmision allowing an infinitely variable transmission which allows engine off operation up to certain speeds.

      The pancake motor sandwiched between the engine and transmission - for example Honda uses this style hybrid now. Very simple, but the engine must always turn and output of the motor is typically fairly limited.

      The GM 2-mode which has a couple induction motors in the transmission with a clutch to disengage the engine and more. This system allows the engine to be decoupled from the wheels to run purely on electric power, but can also operate as if the motors aren't even there.

      The Ford/Toyota style hybrids seem to produce the best improvements in fuel economy at a nominal cost. The Honda style hybrid seems to be a bit less expensive, but also less capable since the engine must always be turning. The GM 2 mode is also very capable, but heavy so currently only well suited for larger vehicles.

      Then there's the serial hybrid (as in the upcoming Chevy Volt) where the engine is completely decoupled from the drivetrain is operates purely as a range extender.

      I would argue that all current production hybrids are actually fairly simple (except the 2 mode) and efficient - if they weren't, they wouldn't produce any appreciable improvement in fuel economy on the highway - and all of them do.

      Can 25lbs of super caps really store enough energy to get a 3,000lb vehicle up to highway speeds?

      A quick seems to show that super caps can store up to 30Wh/lb. So 25 pounds would get you 750 Wh. Let's say you want to accelerate your 3,000 lb vehicle to 60mph in 10 seconds.

      Back of the envelope calculations put the average power requirement (ignoring air resistance) at 40 kW for 10 seconds. That seems pretty low given that most cars that do 0-60 in 10 seconds typically put out about 100 kW, so I must have done that wrong. Anyway, 100 kW for 10 seconds uses less than 300 Wh of energy so it does seem like it could be done. I assume that price of these supercaps must be keeping these from seeing production vehicles?

    191. Re:Guilty conscience? by iainl · · Score: 1

      There's something wrong with spending over a million pounds on a Veyron when a £40k Caterham R500 Superlight will beat it round the track, however. If that's not good enough, a £235k Caparo T1 will absolutely demolish it.

      The Veyron is an ugly display of brute horsepower, and represents everything I dislike about the German attitude to fast car building usually seen courtesy of AMG. They may be building and selling the Bugatti in France, but their paymasters at VW certainly look to be in charge.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    192. Re:Guilty conscience? by _32nHz · · Score: 1

      Much as I hate to add to the bunkum. 18/10 stainless steel means it has 10% nickel. Automotive steel has far less, or no, nickel.

    193. Re:Guilty conscience? by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      That calculation was just done off wikipedia anyway. I don't know what the price of such a system would be. 'supercapacitors.org' seems to claim they're in use on most hybrid vehicles.

    194. Re:Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The average STAINLESS steel is about 10% nickel. Regular steel is not. Its primary components are iron and a small and very specific amount of carbon. Other elements are in lower percentages. Since that's what all "standard" cars use, that's not a good comparison.

      Also, the Veyron's frame is composed entirely of carbon fiber and aluminum, so no nickel there either.

    195. Re:Guilty conscience? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      or he is confusing (on purpose?) income tax with capital gains tax.

      If you follow the links, you'll find out a) you are sort of right and b) he isn't confusing things; he's perfectly clear. He's talking about income as in all the money you get in a year and he makes most of his money as capital gains. Income tax only applies to a small proportion of his income.

      Having said that; WB appears to be almost deliberately paying more tax than he needs. Most of the seriously rich have better ways of engineering things. He doesn't "have a tax shelter," at all; or so he says. By putting money into trusts and keeping it in tax havens, most of the rich avoid taxes almost completely.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    196. Re:Guilty conscience? by StarWreck · · Score: 1

      We're talking petrol here, not Diesel.

      --
      ... and in the DRM, bind them.
    197. Re:Guilty conscience? by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      Yes there is something wrong, the pure selfishness involved in it. It's called compassion and it's something the individualistic enlightenment mentality has lost.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    198. Re:Guilty conscience? by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      The moral argument is that you're being extremely selfish.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    199. Re:Guilty conscience? by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      Me, Me, Me. Have some compassion

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    200. Re:Guilty conscience? by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      I agree, it's not stupid but SELFISH.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
  8. Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sorry, but if I had one, my guilty conscience would have been left behind on the road, choking on the dust from my Veyron.

  9. Re:interesting fact by tsa · · Score: 3, Funny

    GM owns Volkswagen? That is news to me.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  10. A bit overblown by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0, Troll

    TFA waffles on about how Bugatti had to work on the structure to make it survive at 250 miles per hour, but honestly, speeds like that are just routine for twin engined aeroplanes. They need to be engineered to do that too but it isn't really a big deal.

    Amateurs have built cars which go close to the sound barrier. Cars were going as fast as this 50 years ago. Sure, road vehicles get stressed a bit more than aircraft, but any sail plane comes with a 20G crash cage made out of normal aluminium. And they cost, what? 100 grand?

    1. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, they don't go zero to sixty in 2.5 seconds. Those forces cause huge stresses on the cars frame. Secondly, you can't go using whatever materials you want. Weight is an important factor when dealing with cars. "Normal aluminum" is light, but not nearly light enough. And keep in mind, the impressive part was designing a topless vehicle that can withstand the stresses involved with traveling at 217mph.

    2. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      airplanes don't turn on a dime with traction.
      rocket cars don't turn, period.

    3. Re:A bit overblown by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 5, Funny

      "TFA waffles on about how Bugatti had to work on the structure to make it survive at 250 miles per hour, but honestly, speeds like that are just routine for twin engined aeroplanes."

      Not on tarmac they aren't. You're neglecting the fact that the only thing keeping the Veyron on the road are four bits of rubber. Let's see the plane this is supposedly routine for do 250mph along the ground for any length of time. What an utterly ridiculous statement. You may as well say "The Space Shuttle does more than that easily!" It'd be as equally stupid and irrelevant.

      Do 500mph in a plane, then do 100mph in a car. Which was the rougher ride? Stressed "a bit more"? Are you insane?

      As a racer I'm just honestly astounded you'd make such a wrong headed comparison. I am just overwhelmed here with all the reasons you are so incredibly misguided.

      As for your second equally demented paragraph, the Veyron is ROAD LEGAL! None of the cars you're talking about are.

      Good god it's amazing you can dress yourself. Do you accidentally find yourself trying to wear bananas on your feet? Or perhaps a melon instead of a tie? Because honestly, your comparisons make me wonder what else you get so easily confused by. If you think the Veyron is comparable to a plane then...

      I'm sorry, I'm just utterly baffled by you. But then if you read this you're probably going to try and type your reply on a bowl of soup. After all it's similar to a keyboard.

    4. Re:A bit overblown by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      Seriously d00d, you really think the engineering achievement of a 1950's era salt flats type of car even begins to compare? /ridiculous

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    5. Re:A bit overblown by Bork · · Score: 1

      Airplanes are not cars. A airplane has a tubular structure that can control the flexing of the fuselage, there is room for struts and spars to carry the load. A airplane does not have wheels that can lift off the road during a turn if the weight shifts wrong.

      A convertible is about worst type of vehicle to try and make a race car out of. If you were to look at the side view of a convertible with the top off and the doors open, you will see front half and the back half connected together with a flat surface, the floor pan. Flexing and twisting of the frame through the floor pan alone would be difficult, the flexing would cause the weigh to shift causing bad loading on the wheels.

    6. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather have a Tesla.

    7. Re:A bit overblown by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 4, Informative

      Airplanes go pretty fast on asphalt actually. A typical commerical airliner takes off at about 200 mph and lands at 150-175. The Concorde took off at 250 mph. The shuttle is well over 200 at touchdown.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    8. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is not just how fast it goes, but how well it handles without a top (which is a very significant structural component that keeps the body rigid and the handling stable).

      The bloody article spells it out for you.

    9. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      work on the structure to make it survive ... speeds like that are just routine for twin engined aeroplanes

      If your twin engined aircraft were to slam into the ground at 250Mph would your highly unlikely survival be attributed to anything more than luck? The only mention of "structure" appears thus; "...structural supports for protection during a rollover...". Drivers really do expect to survive such things in a Veyron, not as a fluke but as a feature inherent to the vehicle. Usually when an aircraft moving that fast comes in contact with anything more substantial than a bug or moderate moisture everyone dies.

      Amateurs have built cars which go close to the sound barrier. Cars were going as fast as this 50 years ago.

      Road legal?

      Sure, road vehicles get stressed a bit more than aircraft

      Lets just hand wave that away; rocks, shredded tires, pot holes, careless drivers, frequent and rapid acceleration, etc.

      any sail plane comes with a 20G crash cage made out of normal aluminium

      That 20G is good for a hard landing. >80G are experienced and survived routinely in ordinary everyday passenger cars by only moderately healthy plebs in shirt sleeves. People expect to survive most automotive incidents. Only a fool would expect to survive the aeronautic equivalent.

    10. Re:A bit overblown by onescomplement · · Score: 1

      Goldberg, amen. Many of the posters to /. need to be watered to be sentient. I've flown planes at 600MPH plus and have raced cars at 180MPH. The car thing is WAY more attention-getting. I still fly planes that go high and fast. Common sense caused me to give up the racing cars. (that, and one too many "if it gets quiet don't unbuckle your belts - you might be flying through the air." incidents and weariness in turning money into noise.)

    11. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how many turns do they take at those speeds on the tarmac?

    12. Re:A bit overblown by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Most aircraft aren't going to do too well on an alpine road. And most amateur cars that have gone close to the sound barrier aren't as comfortable and reliable as a high-end luxury car.

    13. Re:A bit overblown by adolf · · Score: 1

      If you think the Veyron is comparable to a plane then...

      Well. It does have air brakes. That makes it a little bit like a plane, doesn't it?

      [/sarcasm]

    14. Re:A bit overblown by adolf · · Score: 1

      Depends. Is there a crosswind?

    15. Re:A bit overblown by khoonirobo · · Score: 0

      Except in airplanes, power to move is not being transferred through the wheels. They are their just to support the plane's weight till the wings take over. And another thing, all those cars that are built by amateurs to go faster than this ... are not built to run on roads for 10+ years.

      To quote from the Top Gear show which quoted the engineer who designed the transmission :
      "Yes, F1 cars do something similar, but the transmission in them need only last a few races, this has to transfer 1000 hp to the wheels at 400+ km/h and last atleast 10 years"
      Apply that to all the various components in the car.

    16. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Juh....eeee....zus. How I've missed this brand of scornful putdown, tastefully done.
      Better than any nicotine fix or caffeine high or sugar rush.

      Thanks you for keeping some of the grand old traditions alive.

    17. Re:A bit overblown by tsa · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Would you say all that in the poor guy's face? I bet you wouldn't. Watch your language. You are incredibly rude to him. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. You are stupid to post such language; the guy you answered is just ignorant.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    18. Re:A bit overblown by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      Ha! Stinging rebuke or what? Better hope that guy doesn't key your car!

    19. Re:A bit overblown by socsoc · · Score: 1

      how many airplanes utilize traction except during take-off and landing?

    20. Re:A bit overblown by Trecares · · Score: 1

      Well just compare the typical road to a runaway. The runaway isn't as bumpy to reduce stresses on the landing gear. Also, the landing gear needs periodic service and replacement. Cars last much longer than that.

    21. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot and its analogies. Computers to cars. Cars to planes. Planes to the shuttle. Now what? "Yes, but Discovery did not typically travel at warp factor 3?"

    22. Re:A bit overblown by dutchd00d · · Score: 1

      Airplanes go pretty fast on asphalt actually. A typical commerical airliner takes off at about 200 mph and lands at 150-175. The Concorde took off at 250 mph. The shuttle is well over 200 at touchdown.

      Sure, but the cornering is crap.

    23. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Notice the word "Routine" in the parent statement.
      Airplanes do not spend most of their time racing around on the ground at 150-250 mph.

    24. Re:A bit overblown by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for the The Fast And The Furious sequel where they do drift races in passenger airplanes.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    25. Re:A bit overblown by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1
      How many turns does a Veyron take at those speeds on the tarmac?

      0

    26. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do 500mph in a plane, then do 100mph in a car. Which was the rougher ride? Stressed "a bit more"? Are you insane?

      Driving 100mph on a road build for that speed in a car build for that speed is quite relaxed. Actually that is my standard travel speed on the Autobahn if there is not too much traffic.

    27. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Whoooooosh*

      The whole point is that the Veyron isn't meant to take-off! Thats the hard part!
      If you're business plan is to murder your client each time they drive down a straight then your comment is bang on. Otherwise you're missing the point somewhat.

    28. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Airplanes go pretty fast on asphalt actually. A typical commerical airliner takes off at about 200 mph and lands at 150-175. The Concorde took off at 250 mph. The shuttle is well over 200 at touchdown.

      Try turning at that speed with your plane, should be fun !

    29. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a racer, and you think the rubber is all that's keeping you on the road? You can't be a very good one, then.

      I guess in your mind aerodynamics are completely unimportant?

      Oh, and SSC has a faster, road legal, production car. Granted, their official world record is only 3 mph faster than the Veyron, as they haven't tried to hit 270 with the new model (yet).

    30. Re:A bit overblown by dkf · · Score: 1

      Airplanes go pretty fast on asphalt actually. A typical commerical airliner takes off at about 200 mph and lands at 150-175. The Concorde took off at 250 mph. The shuttle is well over 200 at touchdown.

      Sure, but the cornering is crap.

      You try doing that speed in a big full bus towing a trailer load of goods and see if you want to turn...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    31. Re:A bit overblown by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Airplanes go pretty fast on asphalt actually. A typical commerical airliner takes off at about 200 mph and lands at 150-175. The Concorde took off at 250 mph. The shuttle is well over 200 at touchdown.

      Yeah, and the Concorde did so well when it's tires blew on takeoff, too....

    32. Re:A bit overblown by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Can the Veyron ride at those speeds on bumpy roads?

      The Top Gear video said the wheels of the Veyron would last 15 minutes at top speed.

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    33. Re:A bit overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but we are talking about sustained travel at those speeds. A commercial airliner only travels quickly on the tarmac for what? 10-15 seconds? The Veyron is on the road 100% of the time.

      Hell... The Concorde doesn't fly any more because it kept breaking down and was too expensive to maintain.

      As for the shuttle
      http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html
      It costs approx 1.7 billion. So yes, it can probably handle more stress than the veyron ;)

  11. Re:interesting fact by ximenes · · Score: 2, Informative

    Bugatti Automobiles SAS is a subsidiary of Volkswagen, and is actually a new company founded in 2000. As far as I'm aware, none of the former Bugatti companies were ever associated with GM; even if they were, a subsidiary can certainly make cars distinct from its parent company if the corporate structure permits.

  12. It's the ultimate halo car by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_vehicle
    The whole point of a halo car is to demonstrate engineering prowess and/or get PR for the company. It certainly worked; Bugatti went from being a maliase-y brand nobody had heard of, to a brand almost any 18 year old kid and any car enthusiast worth his salt knows about. It wouldn't surprise me if Bugatti make a big move into a (obviously lower) luxury market very soon, cashing in on the recognition they've earned.

    1. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think that Bugatti is a recent car manufacturer. It was actually created in 1909 and has always been in the luxury market ...

    2. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Informative? I had no idea what a Halo vehicle was (not a gamer) but I've heard of Bugatti for ages. Perhaps it was PR to the folks who never leave their Xboxes except to check their twitter...

    3. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It wouldn't surprise me if Bugatti make a big move into a (obviously lower) luxury market very soon, cashing in on the recognition they've earned.

      The Bugatti brand has historically been known for exclusive and mostly very high performance automobiles in relatively the same market as other boutique Italian manufacturers such as Ferrari and Lamborghini or the British Aston Martin. The halo effect is well known in mass market brands, but Bugatti and other boutiques like it are NOT mass market brands and cannot be made into mass market brands without losing their boutique pedigree and exclusivity. I would be surprised if Volkswagen attempted to mass market the Bugatti name by producing luxury cars which compete for an entirely different market than supercars. The Mercedes "S-Class" buyer or perhaps the Rolls Royce or Bentley in the really high end is not looking for a supercar, but rather a smooth ride with the most luxurious features and the highest possible quality construction. They generally want a large sedan-like car, not a formula-one racer with leather seats.

    4. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      From what planet are you, that you never heard of Bugatti before the Veyron? I knew them in the 80s, from making racing cars and there being vintage/veteran cars from Bugatti at shows and in some playing cards.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by cheros · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if Bugatti make a big move into a (obviously lower) luxury market very soon, cashing in on the recognition they've earned.

      Yeah, sure. I bet they'll be called Volkswagen. Oh, wait ..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    6. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by ndixon · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if Bugatti make a big move into a (obviously lower) luxury market very soon, cashing in on the recognition they've earned.

      They wouldn't be the first.

      The Bugatti brand has historically been known for exclusive and mostly very high performance automobiles in relatively the same market as other boutique Italian manufacturers such as Ferrari and Lamborghini or the British Aston Martin. The halo effect is well known in mass market brands, but Bugatti and other boutiques like it are NOT mass market brands and cannot be made into mass market brands without losing their boutique pedigree and exclusivity.

      Aston Martin's halo might be about to slip, although the Cygnet will only be available to existing A-M owners.

      --
      Oh, how convenient: a theory about God that doesn't involve looking through a telescope.
    7. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by Lemming+Mark · · Score: 1

      You mean like the Warthog?

      *ouch, ouch* why do I post these things!?

    8. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by guacamole · · Score: 1

      I really doubt that the Halo car effect will help VW recover the money it has sunk into Bugatti, much less make any profit off it. For one, I don't think they want to move Bugatti brand down in the market. VW already has plenty of higher volume sports car brands. Moving down market, means Bugatti will be competing with VW's own Porsche, Lamborghini, and Audi's supercars like Audi R8. Staying up-market also doesn't seem to make much sense. No matter how much they charge for a single car, they will never recover the costs sunk into it.

    9. Re:It's the ultimate halo car by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Bugatti's car business was dead since the 50s, and was not resurrected until 90s. By 90s, there was not much of the car company left except for the brand name. There was no continuity. Moreover, the Bugatti of the 90s probably would go out of business if VW did not buy them. So to me, it's a relatively new brand, but albeit one that has made more than enough noise to be taken as a serious sports car maker.

  13. It's a dinosaur. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Funny
    Here are the critturs in the supercar world that will replace it:

    At the beginning of 2008 Pininfarina and Bolloré set up a 50-50 joint venture with the goal of designing, developing, manufacturing and distributing an electric car with revolutionary technical features and formal qualities. The company considers the BLUECAR, to be not a mere concept car but a forerunner of the vehicle which will go into production in Italy at Pininfarina starting from 2010. Production on a commercial scale will take place between 2011 and 2017, with the forecasted output by 2015 being about 60,000 units.

    Link to Story.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:It's a dinosaur. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that story
      is very difficult
      to read for
      some strange reason
      that I can't
      quite put my
      finger on.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  14. Re:If I ever see.. by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why? The Veyron is an incredible piece of engineering. Bugatti sell them at a LOSS if I recall. The workmanship is astounding.

    I ever caught you keying ANY car, I'd break your fucking legs. People who key cars are UNIVERSALLY assholes.

    But then you're too big of a pussy to post with your real account, so clearly you ARE an asshole.

  15. "Guilty conscience" by oldhack · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Yeah, like they gonna sell millions of these. Keep your commie green cool aid to yourself, eh, monkey boy?!

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:"Guilty conscience" by johnlcallaway · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People are usually only jealous of people who have more then they do..

      They are rarely jealous of someone who has less.

      My guess is that ScuttleMonkey belongs to the former, and his rant is nothing more than sour grapes. I'll just admit that I could never afford to even own one, let alone buy one and move on.

      But I sure would love to take a look at one....or a ride.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    2. Re:"Guilty conscience" by nidarus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, like they gonna sell millions of these. Keep your commie green cool aid to yourself, eh, monkey boy?!

      "Commie" is a bit inappropriate, considering the immense environmental damage caused by communist regimes. It kinda figures, considering that they were all about "progress", technology and industrial "victory". The Nazis, OTOH, were relatively "green", at least in theory. Hitler was even a vegetarian (sort of). Cue Godwin!

    3. Re:"Guilty conscience" by oldhack · · Score: 1

      God damn monkey fanbois.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    4. Re:"Guilty conscience" by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The Nazis, OTOH, were relatively "green"

            They certainly found a very cheap source of fertilizer...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:"Guilty conscience" by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Commie" is a bit inappropriate, considering the immense environmental damage caused by communist regimes"

      Not all communist regimes are equal, Cuba certainly has a better environmental record then most capitalist nations, since western nations usually export their garbage to the third world when possible. So keep the FUD to yourself please.

    6. Re:"Guilty conscience" by enrevanche · · Score: 1

      It is not communist vs. capitalist but totalitarian vs. democracy. With democracy you get at least some degree of necessity to answer to the people.

      What is so green about starting WW2? Perhaps Hitler was "green" in the old fatherland, but he spread environmental disaster everywhere else.

      Germany at that time certainly was a collaboration of capitalists with fascists, but the economy was highly controlled and regulated and could in no way be consider a market economy

    7. Re:"Guilty conscience" by ionix5891 · · Score: 1

      Yes gassing millions of people and keeping populations down by killing them in blitzkriegs is "green" as it cuts down CO2

      how perverse...

    8. Re:"Guilty conscience" by mnky-33 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like they gonna sell millions of these. Keep your commie green cool aid to yourself, eh, monkey boy?!

      "Commie" is a bit inappropriate, considering the immense environmental damage caused by communist regimes. It kinda figures, considering that they were all about "progress", technology and industrial "victory". The Nazis, OTOH, were relatively "green", at least in theory. Hitler was even a vegetarian (sort of). Cue Godwin!

      I'm fed up of this "Hitler was a veggie" myth. It isn't true. His doctors attempted to make him switch to an all veg diet to cure his flatulence, but he never did.

    9. Re:"Guilty conscience" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cue Godwin!

      FWIW, Godwins law dosn't apply when you actually mention it.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    10. Re:"Guilty conscience" by nidarus · · Score: 1

      What is so green about starting WW2? Perhaps Hitler was "green" in the old fatherland, but he spread environmental disaster everywhere else.

      Absolutely nothing. His actions inflicted quite a lot of damage on Germany as well. Nazi rhetoric, OTOH, was pretty "green". That's why I said, "in theory".

    11. Re:"Guilty conscience" by nidarus · · Score: 1

      I'm fed up of this "Hitler was a veggie" myth. It isn't true.

      That's why I said "sort of". In any case, it was a myth that he was happy to cultivate, and was a part of his public image.

    12. Re:"Guilty conscience" by nidarus · · Score: 1

      Not all communist regimes are equal, Cuba certainly has a better environmental record then most capitalist nations

      Did I say "every single communist regime"? Yeah, small island nations with no real industries can be pretty clean (I'm taking your word for it - although I do wonder how the Veyron compares to the American cars from the 1950s the Cubans drive). But China, and especially the USSR, have done quite enough damage.

      So keep the FUD to yourself please.

      Aye aye, comrade. Anyway, when talking about communist regimes, there's quite a lot of F, but no UD to speak of - most of their crimes are well documented.

  16. Re:If I ever see.. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Working in Singapore a year ago I noticed that there were a lot of Lamborghinis around. Its a bit silly because their highest speed limit is 80km/h and the island isn't big enough to get the thing to top speed anyway.

    Apparently the thing to do is wake up at 4 AM, cross the causeway into Malaysia and point the car at Kuala Lumpur. Two hours later you are having breakfast in KL. The drive back would be after the traffic cops have woken up for the day so you take a bit longer for that leg, and carry some cash

  17. Re:interesting fact by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    More likely to be the other way around I think.

  18. It's ridiculous to those by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

    who can't afford it.

    --
    Camping on quad since 1996.
    1. Re:It's ridiculous to those by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine it's ridiculous to most of those who can afford it, as well. Hell, it's probably ridiculous to most of those who actually buy it. It's basically peacock feathers--a total liability, yet the owner is still strong, thus "proving" his alphaness.

    2. Re:It's ridiculous to those by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      So, what you are saying is that it has a purpose?

      Then it is not as ridiculous as you say.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  19. Car analogy by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

    For those needing a car analogy: it's like* a car.

    *The value of "like" in this sentence is negligible, so the word may be omitted.

  20. It's degrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The car isn't for millionaires it's essentially for billionaires or people with that level of yearly income. Lets say you are making 50 or 100 million a year just how much can you spend on food and housing? the sad thing is it's like the "Dawn of the Dead" quote about a gun. "The only one that could miss with this is the sucker with the bread to buy it". The point being just how many people with that much money can actually handle a car of that caliber? They are effectively a piece of art that will largely go to waste.

  21. Amateurs by Tanman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh yeah, sure, it's very easy for amateurs to make cars go 400mph. I see it all the time with funny cars/etc.

    Of course, they only go that fast for a couple brief seconds. Then, after about 2 runs down the track, they have to completely rebuild the engines. And the tires have to be replaced after each race. And the engines can't pass smog tests. And the cars aren't street legal.

    Everyone knows lots of things that go this fast. What makes this car amazing is that it goes this fast and it's a god damn daily driver. If you can afford it.

    1. Re:Amateurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Point taken, but funny cars are a bad comparison: They're built for acceleration, not velocity. The point isn't that they can go 300+ MPH, but that they can reach that speed in under 5 seconds.

  22. Re:interesting fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GM owns Volkswagen? That is news to me.

    Yeah, it's true. But it's a 2007 VW Rabbit, so I wouldn't get too excited about it. I heard it's for sale.

  23. Bugatti Veyron = 27 MP3's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kinda puts it in perspective..............

    1. Re:Bugatti Veyron = 27 MP3's by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Wanna swap?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Bugatti Veyron = 27 MP3's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know of a pawn shop that accepts MP3's for 10% of value? I'd like a few dozen Veyrons...

    3. Re:Bugatti Veyron = 27 MP3's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like +5 Sad :(

  24. Yeah, I know it's supposed to be sexy and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a top speed of 245 mph

    If you really need to get somewhere this fast, wouldn't it be more cost-effective to buy yourself a plane?

  25. Re:If I ever see.. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    They're sold at a loss for the first 100 or so. Once you hit the 200 million mark you've pretty much recouped your loss from R&D + actual manufacture. I'm sure if they sell 150 of them in the vechicle's lifespan they'll have easily made a 100 million dollar profit. The trick though, is to actually SELL 150 of them at the asking price. If asking price is 2.1 million, they'd probably sell one to you (cash in advance of course) for 1.6 - 1.7 million. My guess anyways.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  26. Re:interesting fact by compro01 · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's a Porsche. Bugatti is owned by Volkswagen, who are in turn majority owned by Porsche.

    Lamborghini is also owned by Porsche.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  27. It's rather small by hoarier · · Score: 1

    For enhanced automotive stupidity (extra length, extra ugliness, extra thirst, all-around extra arrogance), try a car with a 27-litre engine. As a bonus, you also get an extra hammy narration, so all in all it's just what your inner nine-year-old craves.

  28. Re:If I ever see.. by Antlerbot · · Score: 1

    So...why does this guy get troll, while the parent gets insightful? Because he used big nasty swear words?

  29. Finance a car loan by unlametheweak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hell, in this economy, $2.1 million is probably enough to make you a one-man special-interest group with some serious Washington clout."

    It's a car well suited to bankers who profited from the financial scandals and government bailouts.

  30. Comparison by Amiralul · · Score: 1

    Still, it's cheaper than TPB...

  31. It is not about the top speed... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

    It is all about acceleration. The "older" Bugatti Veyron reaching 100 km/h (62 mph) in approximately 2.46 seconds. This is very near motorcycle speeds. So while the high end might be very high, the low end is where most people drive the thing.

    Putting it into perspective, my wife drives an Audi S6 with the Lamborghini v10 under the hood. Fast enough for as heavy as it is, and will do the same in about 5.2 seconds. I've got a Porsche 911 C4 with a 300 horse V6 that does it in about 5.3 seconds. Her car has a speed limiter, but I've never got to the point where it has come into play. In normal driving, that sort of acceleration can be handy and is used often enough. With my car, I've never been on a track with a long enough strait line to even get up into the 165+ range.

    Love to take a lap or two in one of these....

     

    1. Re:It is not about the top speed... by Spoke · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've got a Porsche 911 C4 with a 300 horse V6

      Hate to tell ya, but you've got a flat 6, not a V6, sitting behind you...

    2. Re:It is not about the top speed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's okay. If he didn't know that already, then he's not likely really sitting in a Porsche anyway.

    3. Re:It is not about the top speed... by Cederic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually he's pretty indicative of the average Porsche driver.

    4. Re:It is not about the top speed... by junglee_iitk · · Score: 1

      How much would you take to give me that Porsche for free?

    5. Re:It is not about the top speed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is all about acceleration. The "older" Bugatti Veyron reaching 100 km/h (62 mph) in approximately 2.46 seconds. This is very near motorcycle speeds. So while the high end might be very high, the low end is where most people drive the thing.

      Putting it into perspective, my wife drives an Audi S6 with the Lamborghini v10 under the hood. Fast enough for as heavy as it is, and will do the same in about 5.2 seconds. I've got a Porsche 911 C4 with a 300 horse V6 that does it in about 5.3 seconds. Her car has a speed limiter, but I've never got to the point where it has come into play. In normal driving, that sort of acceleration can be handy and is used often enough. With my car, I've never been on a track with a long enough strait line to even get up into the 165+ range.

      Love to take a lap or two in one of these....

      C'mon. Now you made all us geeks drool and envious. How did you get one? Please could you tell us your secret. I'm sure there are thousands of geeks who only have a desktop background image of one, but a real wife!

    6. Re:It is not about the top speed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a Porsche 911 C4 with a 300 horse V6

      Hate to tell ya, but you've got a flat 6, not a V6, sitting behind you...

      Behind? What do you mean?

    7. Re:It is not about the top speed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You, Sir, have a horizontally opposed 6 cylinder. That's the beauty of the boxer engine in the 911; it needs no balance shaft due to horizontal piston opposition.

    8. Re:It is not about the top speed... by guisar · · Score: 1

      I think that's about the average level of knowledge/interest exhibited by the average Porsche, BMW, MB owner these days. Long gone are the mechanics working on their own cars and marveling at the engineering prowess of their vehicle which they could expect to last twenty years or so. These cars now days are largely owned by posers and snobs; the manufacturers don't produce or allow others to produce decent work manuals and the goal of the newer designs seems to be to make every part as proprietary as possible. I won't even start on the electronic gremlins; about the only advantage of today's engineering marvels are the levels of emissions and safety. They just don't make them like they used too.

    9. Re:It is not about the top speed... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Actually he's pretty indicative of the average Porsche driver.

      No, I'd say the average (male) Porsche driver knows the 6 is flat, but the average cretin spouting about Porsches as if they owned one tend to only remember 20% of the article they read about them.

    10. Re:It is not about the top speed... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      The classic Porsche is a rear engined and air cooled.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    11. Re:It is not about the top speed... by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      Oh lordy... one of the dangers of drinking and posting without an edit button. V6... get the rope...

      To your point, they do make it tricky to do your own work. I bought a ODBII reader to sort out what the computer was trying to tell me beyond the normal 'codes'. In the end, it was just a MAF sensor that was failing, but I wanted the actual engine data to narrow it down. None of the parts were going to be cheap, and I did not want to guess. I do work on my own car. Other than brakepads, rotors, and an alternator, the mechanical systems have not needed any work. Wish all onboard computers came with a USB port...

    12. Re:It is not about the top speed... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd happily give up my 6v electrical system for a 12v one :) Sure would be nice if they used galvanized steel in the 50s and 60s too, but I can understand...

      German copyright for the 356 workshop manual expired years ago, so there are plenty of ways to get a xerox copy. Joe Leoni makes excellent colored and laminated electrical diagrams for each model of the 356, and there are lots of other good mechanical manuals and howto videos available as well (Elfrink's, Harry Pellow - the mechanic behind The Maestro from Jerry Seinfeld - and others...)

      But yeah, for those new fangled Porsches with 12v electricals and 6 cylidners, there is a lack.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    13. Re:It is not about the top speed... by lazyforker · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a 180deg V - ie a special case. Like a square is a special type of rectangle.

    14. Re:It is not about the top speed... by ApplicativeJones · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's a boxer, not a 180 V. There are two ways you can do a flat engine. A flat V has pistons opposite each other 180 degrees apart in the timing cycle. A boxer has pistons opposite each other in the same point in the timing cycle. As far as I know, only 3 automobile companies use flat engines at all, and they all use boxer designs. Subaru and Porsche in cars, and BMW in motorcycles.

    15. Re:It is not about the top speed... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      VW bug. Of course, the Porsche 356 engine was essentially a balanced and blue printed bug engine with tighter tolerances.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    16. Re:It is not about the top speed... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      In normal driving, that sort of acceleration can be handy and is used often enough.

      Not if you're a good driver.

    17. Re:It is not about the top speed... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Funny! I was looking to buy a BMW last year, looking thru the craigslist ads, I found more ads that talked about the car having a V6 than anything.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  32. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think someone's a more than a bit jealous...

  33. Think of the Virgens! by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why? The Veyron is an incredible piece of engineering. Bugatti sell them at a LOSS if I recall. The workmanship is astounding.

    Not only that, but according to the Wired article,

    they had to sacrifice 100 virgins and have the production facility in Molsheim, France, blessed by druids.

    I completely disagree with sacrificing virgins, so anybody who buys this car is implicitly supporting the destruction of virgins.

    1. Re:Think of the Virgens! by Jurily · · Score: 1

      I completely disagree with sacrificing virgins, so anybody who buys this car is implicitly supporting the destruction of virgins.

      Male virgins, yes. Now give me my car!

    2. Re:Think of the Virgens! by Gandalf_Greyhame · · Score: 4, Funny

      I completely disagree with sacrificing virgins, so anybody who buys this car is implicitly supporting the destruction of virgins.

      Male virgins, yes. Now give me my car!

      That is why he is against the destruction of virgins... self preservation

      --
      I am not stubborn. I am right!
  34. Re:If I ever see.. by powerslave12r · · Score: 1

    That's not how it works. Selling one at a loss means, all things considered, they are going to sell the car for less than what it cost to build it. Its not a mass produced car so your calculation will probably not hold true. BTW, this news it older than dirt.

    --
    Real men read Slashdot articles at -1, bottom up.
  35. Aston Martin by deepGem · · Score: 1

    I guess the Aston Martin "one-77" has some competition now.

  36. My question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What advantages does this motor car have over, say, a train -- which I could also afford?

    1. Re:My question by cheros · · Score: 1

      - No need to share air with funny smelling people
      - No need for stations/rails/train conductors/smelly toilets
      - Available at odd hours
      - A heck of a lot more fun once you get over the guilt (0.5msec, I reckon - you did all that when you spent the cash)
      - Goes to other places
      - More comfortable to sit in a queue with
      - If you're that rich, I presume your definition of "public transport" will include helicopters and business jets.

      That's about it for now, I'm still busy reducing the blood level in my caffeine..

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    2. Re:My question by ruiner13 · · Score: 1

      The advantage of being able to turn when you want to?

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

    3. Re:My question by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Christ, Slashdot has really gone downhill when people don't recognise Simpsons quotes anymore.

  37. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck yeah! legs are self-healing anyway.

    idiot.

  38. Re:If I ever see.. by pregister · · Score: 1

    Posting anonymously so people won't know what a douche you are.

    There, fixed.

  39. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. Clearly he's never had anybody clip his side mirror in a parking lot, when it was obviously the car still sitting next to him upon returning to the lot.

  40. Veyron? Meh. by Bovineck · · Score: 1

    If your balls drop, you might like to save money and get a Hayabusa (http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2008/08/12000-suzuki-hayabusa-outperfo.html). It outperforms the Veyron...it's a physics thing. When I've pointed this out to people in the past they say "Oh yes but a car is more practical". Sure, a multimillion dollar car sounds very practical - I'd love to own one to do the shopping or take the kids to school!

    1. Re:Veyron? Meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, a multimillion dollar car sounds very practical - I'd love to own one to do the shopping or take the kids to school!

      Ummm, here's a hint. If you spend a couple million on a car, you will also own a few other cars that are handy for other things. You will also have people working for you to take the kids to school and do the shopping.

    2. Re:Veyron? Meh. by diskis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In a straight line yes, but with any kind of turns on the road the bike gets owned.
      I mean, I have a Mazda MX-5, pretty much the cheapest roadster you can get. It has 160 hp on 950 kg, and I've left a bike with 120 hp on 200 kg behind on a very squiggly road. Bikes don't handle. And with a car, if you lose grip you have the possibility of getting back control. Lose control with a bike, and you are an organ donor.

    3. Re:Veyron? Meh. by Bovineck · · Score: 1

      #1. Bike performance like car performance is dependent upon the driver/rider. Bikes do handle. Most riders do not handle bikes. One anecdote does not an argument make. #2. "Lose control with a bike...blah blah" That's why your nuts have to have dropped. Bikes are not for the faint-of-heart. Mind you, I've seen plenty of smashed ex-heroes in cars along the twisty roads as well...even the odd mazda...

    4. Re:Veyron? Meh. by hibiki_r · · Score: 1

      Racing bikes can handle well enough:Let's look at a track with a decent turn/straight mix, like Laguna Seca. A motogp bike can do 1'23 around the track. That's a bit faster than what a Porche 911 GT3 does on the same track. The bikes take the corners a bit slower, but they are comparable over a race distance.

      The MX-5 might be as cheap as roadsters get, but it's no slouch on a curvy road. Plenty of cars with a lot more power will do worse on a track with only very short straights. You have to spend a lot more dough to find a car that is much better than it is for Autocross.

    5. Re:Veyron? Meh. by JoJo's883 · · Score: 1

      I beg to differ on your comparison of handling capabilities between a motorcycle and a car. I will concede that it is much easier for the average person to learn to drive fairly fast in a car as opposed to on a motorcycle. However as a former professional motorcycle racer I would contend that had your opponent been a well trained and experienced rider you would most likely have been left far behind. Even if the cornering capabilities were conceded to your car, (which I don't agree to) the braking and acceleration capabilities of the MC you describe give it the ability to brake much later into the corners and accelerate much sooner coming out of the corners. This sounds more like a case of a semi skilled car driver up against an unskilled motorcycle rider. If you ever get to Illinois I will be happy to give you another go against a motorcycle and mine is nowhere near what you describe above. You just need to be prepared to have to tell your friends that you got dusted on a back road by a Harley Sportster. ;-} I will agree to your final statement on the possibility of becoming an organ donor in the event of going down at speed on a bike.

  41. Veyron is not the most ridiculous car ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Porsche Cayenne is.

    At least Veyron has a purpose. It's a sports car designed to drive extremely fast. The price is irrelevant.

    The Porsche Cayenne is a 4x4 car that can only be driven on a plain asphalted road. There is absolutely no reason for it to be as huge as it is. It's a formula 1 car on steroids. It's like a a body builder, it only looks like it's strong but in reality it's not.

  42. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    only if still attached to the body.

  43. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Oh fuck you. There are plenty of self-conscious assholes who think of no one but themselves and park like that too, and those dick wads deserve getting their car keyed. What's the matter, are you one of those dicks who got his car keyed for that very reason?

  44. Re:If I ever see.. by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a lopsided equation where the design cost is very high and the production number is very low. If you take them exactly at their word then yes they will never, ever make money on it. I highly doubt that the statement of "every Veyron is sold at a loss" comes with zero marketing spin. My point being that most of the built in cost of the car is the R&D. If you plan to sell 50 of them (@ $2 mil each) and it cost 200 million to design then yes it's being sold at a loss. You don't even make back what you spent on R&D, let along parts and labor. If you sell 100 at the same price you're selling them at cost - minus materials and labor. If materials and labor are anywhere near 3/4 million then somewhere around the 150 vehicle mark is the break even point. In reality I would wager they probably are losing no more than 40-60K per car, or VW would have canned the project long ago. 30-40K per car is an easy write-off for productive R&D that can be applied to the various brands VW owns (VW, Porsche, etc)

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  45. Re:interesting fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Porsche ownership is practically a technicality. VW is keeping Porsche afloat.

  46. Bugatti brand by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 4, Interesting

    brand nobody had heard of

    Are you kidding? Bugatti has been around forever.

    Nowadays Bugatti is owned by Volkswagen and the Veyron is it's "gimmick" (for the car illiterate, this is an understatement) to show the world how bloody good they are. The "Volk" (people) part of VW is prohibitive in marketing luxury cars. The Phaeton for example just doesn't get the attention it deserves in the limousine segment.

    IMHO the pedigree isn't there anymore. Bugatti was very successful in the old days but ever since Ettore Bugatti passed away in 1947 the company just didn't have a sense of direction. In 1987 the name Bugatti -and not the expertise and craftsmanship- was bought by an entrepreneur which produced the horrible Bugatti EB110. Now VW produces the Veyron and it's currently the technically most sophisticated car around but the blood line is definitively cut.

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    1. Re:Bugatti brand by zakkie · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Bugatti EB110 is horrible"? To give you an idea of just how "horrible" it was, the greatest driver ever (statistically) - Michael Schumacher - bought one himself, and drove it often. Plus, it was the progenitor of the Veyron's quad-turbo meme. And you were doing quite well, up to there ;-)

    2. Re:Bugatti brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Not to mention VW owns Lamboghini and Porsche. There's your "lower end" market covered there.

    3. Re:Bugatti brand by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      The Bugatti EB110 is horrible"? To give you an idea of just how "horrible" it was, the greatest driver ever (statistically) - Michael Schumacher - bought one himself, and drove it often. Plus, it was the progenitor of the Veyron's quad-turbo meme. And you were doing quite well, up to there ;-)

      Yeah, Schumi bought one so it's likely to be a proper racer. No argument there.

      But look at a picture of the EB110 and almost any other model Bugatti built before that. Suddenly whatever beauty you see in the EB110's fades.
      A bit like the Gumpert Apollo. Hell of a car but too ugly to be driven at night, in the desert, when a lethal virus decimated the world population and you're blind as well.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    4. Re:Bugatti brand by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to mention VW owns Lamboghini and Porsche. There's your "lower end" market covered there.

      Porsche not (yet) and Lambo through Audi. Wouldn't we all want to humbly eat these scraps?

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    5. Re:Bugatti brand by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      When I look at the exterior and interior of the Veyron, a lack of expertise and craftsmanship is not what comes to mind. The interior of the Veyron is my current favorite of any supercar. I'm not usually a fan of that style, but it's done so well in the Veyron.

    6. Re:Bugatti brand by horza · · Score: 1

      Isn't it the other way around, with Porsche buying VW? This means they will also own Bentley, another top of the range luxury brand.

      Phillip.

    7. Re:Bugatti brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What blood line? It's a car we're discussing, right?

    8. Re:Bugatti brand by Mordac · · Score: 1

      Sad about the Phaeton. That car is a marvel of its own, VW threw everything they could to make it, but its popularity never took off because they stuck the VW badge on it.

      When the president of a major auto company says no shortcuts, you get the Phaeton.

    9. Re:Bugatti brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Porsche attempted to buy out VW, but the deal turned such that now Porsche needs help from VW. This NY Times article on it gives a rather interesting history of the relationship between the companies.

    10. Re:Bugatti brand by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Doesn't VW own Audi for a "luxury" line? Kinda like how Toyota does Lexus, Honda is Acura, and so on?

    11. Re:Bugatti brand by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

      When I look at the exterior and interior of the Veyron, a lack of expertise and craftsmanship is not what comes to mind.

      The point was that at some the Bugatti name was traded when the expertise and craftsmanship weren't long gone. Sure enough expertise and craftsmanship were brought in but missing that heritage reduced Bugatti to merely a brand. I don't think Ettore Bugatti would have wanted it that way. I do think he would have been impressed by the Veyron though.

      --

      I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
    12. Re:Bugatti brand by zakkie · · Score: 1

      Ah, but form following function is beauty in my eyes. Both the Gumpert and the EB110 score highly for me from that point of view. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no doubt, but "horrible" is a tad too strong. Not all earlier Bugattis would have won universal acclaim from a styling point of view either; the Type 57 "Tank" and the Type 101 Ghia were hit firmly with the ugly stick in my opinion.

  47. My other car is the Batmobile by igny · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I dare them to crash this car in the next Batman.

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  48. story trashcan ? by Tom · · Score: 1

    Was this from the archives? There've been videos of the car in action, reports from TV car shows, websites and a whole bunch of other stuff for well over a year at least. And none of them said it's a prototype or something.

    We're all used to /. being occasionally "out of touch" with reality a little, but this is "olds", not "news", and 5 seconds with Google would've told the editors.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:story trashcan ? by robbak · · Score: 1

      Well, it certainly was news to me that Bugatti had made the Veyron in a softtop. And the news that they had done so without extra weight, or too much flexing is somewhat unbelievable.
      Seems that I have been somewhat out-of-date, but it's not a year. It was revealed last August.

      --
      Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    2. Re:story trashcan ? by Jbcarpen · · Score: 1

      You're referring to the Veyron that isn't a convertible.

      --
      GENERATION 667: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation
  49. In real units... by david.given · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...1000 horsepower is 750 kilowatts. Your average house electricity supply is 30 kilowatts. A single wind turbine, the really big kind they use in wind farms, generates about 1500 kilowatts.

    1000 horsepower is a lot of power.

    1. Re:In real units... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wouldn't it be more illustrative to point out how many times 1000 harnessed horses would stretch from the moon and back?

    2. Re:In real units... by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

      1000 horsepower is a lot of power.

      Enough to put the average driver into a ditch on the roadside unless the engine is governed and the dynamic stability and traction control system is engaged. Before these sorts of systems were available, putting this much horsepower into the hands of a inexperienced or non-race trained driver was often a deadly combination.

    3. Re:In real units... by Lex-Man82 · · Score: 1

      To be fair anyone buying this car is just going to sit it in a showroom so it's not really going to be using it's 1000 horsepower a lot.

    4. Re:In real units... by the_other_chewey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A single wind turbine, the really big kind they use in wind farms, generates about 1500 kilowatts.

      Uhm, no. In wind energy, that's close to ancient history. Let's say 5000 kilowatts: http://www.repower.de/index.php?id=237&L=1

      And that's a model that can be bought now, there are >8MW models in development.

      750kW in a car is still a lot though.

    5. Re:In real units... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much is it in horses?

    6. Re:In real units... by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      Pff. 1000 horses isn't nearly enough to reach the moon. The Saturn V generated 175,000,000 hp, though. Assuming 2.5m per horse, front to back, that gives us 437,000 km of horses, enough to go to the moon 1.13 times. It's amazing that they were able to get back with only enough horses to return about a tenth of the way!

    7. Re:In real units... by selven · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. How many horses would fit into a Library of Congress?

    8. Re:In real units... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that they were able to get back with only enough horses to return about a tenth of the way!

      I believe their strategy involved eating some of the horses at the destination and shooting the ones which wouldn't make it back.

    9. Re:In real units... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Set aside the engine produces a lot more. 4K hp i think. Most of it goes to to cooling though. The thing has about a dozen radiators.

      A testament to the inefficiency of the idiotic ICE.

      Die. Die. DIE DAMNIT.

    10. Re:In real units... by uncle+slacky · · Score: 1

      First assume a spherical horse...

      --
      Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it.
    11. Re:In real units... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      "there are >8MW models in development."

      That's the one that is going to be put into the US Congress? All kidding aside, any links to that, because that is a massive leap, and this is the first I have heard of it. It's not that I don't believe you, it's that I like to read up on new tech. Thanks.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    12. Re:In real units... by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      There's the Enercon E-126 which is rated at 6MW. It is still considered a prototype,
      even though there are a couple of them already built, and it'll probably end up more
      powerful still: http://www.metaefficient.com/news/new-record-worlds-largest-wind-turbine-7-megawatts.html
      I've been told that 8-9MW versions are probably just a couple of years away.

      Enercon are the guys with the no-gearbox design by the way.

      There's also an American project - with participation of the DoE - to develop a supreconductor-based 10MW generator:
      http://www.amsc.com/newsroom/pr.html?id=317

      And then there's - admittedly a bit more speculative and potentially vapourware-y - Superwind,
      a Danish university project to design a superconducting 10-20MW wind generator: http://www.superwind.dk/

      I'm a bit sceptical about those superconducting designs - even very good insulation will not prevent
      all icing, and uncontrolled icing isn't a good thing, especially when it is in lousy weather a good distance
      off shore. But even conventional (i.e. non-superconducting) technology will probably reach 10MW
      not too far in the future. Pretty cool.

      Oh, and for the really crazy ideas, have a look at the 1GW Maglev Wind Turbine
      At the time being, this is a "looks good on paper" design. However, it might actually be feasible,
      but is certainly still a long time away.

    13. Re:In real units... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Good point. Are gas turbines street-legal? You'd think that this would be a much more effective design at these kinds of speeds.

    14. Re:In real units... by mk2mark · · Score: 1

      But can it run Vista?

    15. Re:In real units... by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      It's cause it is all downhill to get back.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    16. Re:In real units... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...1000 horsepower is 750 kilowatts. Your average house electricity supply is 30 kilowatts. A single wind turbine, the really big kind they use in wind farms, generates about 1500 kilowatts.

      1000 horsepower is a lot of power.

      Cool. So I can buy this and then put up a turbine on my country estate and not only be carbon neutral, I'll actually be carbon negative!

      Hmm. Maybe I should buy two...

    17. Re:In real units... by david.given · · Score: 1
      Fair enough --- I had a lot of trouble finding figures for the 'average' wind turbine. Mostly they just quote them in the mythical 'power X homes' terms.

      The business park where I work has a single turbine as a landscape feature, an Enercon E-70. Now I look, I see someone's updated the wikipedia page with a power output figure --- 2MW.

    18. Re:In real units... by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Thanks!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  50. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hallehlujah!
    Someone on this ignorant yank site who actually writes "km/h" the correct way. I bow to you, sir.

  51. Article Quality and Wired by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The days are certainly gone when Wired used to have people like Neal Stephenson write for them.

    Wired used to be cool and had decent writers. Wired used to be something to /read/.

    Now? We have this. A fluff advertisement column, but not only that, nothing about the tech end at all. Nothing about the engineering or anything really interesting except that it's a fast car and costs a lot of money. It's also written in the style of a high-school newspaper or Slashdot summary. Wired has become Maxim, but without the girls.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Article Quality and Wired by JDub87 · · Score: 1

      No. Now they just quote directly from the latest top gear.

    2. Re:Article Quality and Wired by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. <randy marsh>I can't go back to Wired now!</randy marsh>

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Article Quality and Wired by auric_dude · · Score: 1

      The same might be said for their http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/ - has Wired now become Wireless?

    4. Re:Article Quality and Wired by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      I bought the first UK issue of Wired, and swore never to buy Wired again, ever, after approximately 4 minutes reading.

      Utterly utterly dire.

    5. Re:Article Quality and Wired by turtleAJ · · Score: 1

      Wired used to be cool and had decent writers. Wired used to be something to /read/.

      Amen to THAT!
      I stopped reading Wired about 8 years ago...

      Another magazine to which that happened:
      - Popular Science (now Popular Mechanics is better! WTF!!)

      PS: PUBLIC MSG TO WIRED:
      Guys, I never renewed my subscription.
      As such, I never cared much when you kept sending them (duplicates, every month!).
      Would you please stop sending me bill collection letters?

    6. Re:Article Quality and Wired by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 1

      Wired used to be cool and had decent writers. Wired used to be something to /read/.

      I agree. I canceled my subscription a couple of years ago after I noticed that every cover story was an advertisement for some movie that was coming to theaters that month. The rest of the issue was also generally uninteresting.

    7. Re:Article Quality and Wired by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      The days are certainly gone when Wired used to have people like Neal Stephenson write for them.

      Wired used to be cool and had decent writers. Wired used to be something to /read/.

      Now? We have this. A fluff advertisement column, but not only that, nothing about the tech end at all. Nothing about the engineering or anything really interesting except that it's a fast car and costs a lot of money. It's also written in the style of a high-school newspaper or Slashdot summary. Wired has become Maxim, but without the girls.

      -- BMO

      It's most certainly not advertisement, it's more of an excuse to practice some "Gonzo journalism" writing. I remember a similar column by P.J. o'Rorque in Rolling Stone a few years back about a mere $220K Lambo....

    8. Re:Article Quality and Wired by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Did you really RTFA? Yes, he's performing literary fellatio on the engineers of Bugatti, but he mentions the specs and lots of information (at least, as much as is usually provided about a car) about halfway down the page.
      I agree that Wired used to be a bit more interesting, but this isn't really that bad.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    9. Re:Article Quality and Wired by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I've been reading Wired since the 90s and I couldn't disagree more. There was a period in the early 00s when Wired went though a period of bad quality, but in the last two-three years they've really recaptured the quality.

  52. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative

    $550,000, same 0-60 acceleration, MUCH higher top speed (420 mph/ 676 km/h). So what if it isn't completely street-legal ... even if the cops bought a Veyron, they'd be eating your dust ...

  53. srsly by peas_n_carrots · · Score: 1

    .. and people complain about the range of EVs. This gets what, 5 mpg? A 20 gal tank, which would be huge for a small sports car, would net 100 mi. Blech

  54. Removable roof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read an article where they pointed out the removable roof. There's no room for storing the it in the trunk, so if it happens to rain when you've left it at home, their solution is a rectangluar umbrella that clips over the space over your head.

  55. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How does the possession of money equate to deserving a keyed car?

    Idea for you: get off Slashdot, finish your high school diploma, and get a job. You can buy nice things with the money you earn. Maybe you'll lose the desire to destroy other people's things too :)

  56. Re:Deserve? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speaking from a "flaunt your wealth in the face the starving and you'll get a dagger" class warfare perspective of course.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  57. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Real geeks put diamond dust on the wipers =D

  58. Re:If I ever see.. by Mr+Z · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are two sets of costs: non-recurring and recurring. The non-recurring costs include all of the engineering effort, R&D, putting together the production facility, etc. The recurring costs are those that you incur for each unit produced.

    I find it highly unlikely that the recurring costs are more than $2.1M for the car, unless it was made of solid iridium or something. (Annual production of iridium is something like 3 tons.) I wouldn't find it surprising at all, though, if Bugatti had sunk quite a bit of R&D money into developing the tech in the Veyron, and perhaps a bit of dough on the production facility.

    Wikicars says this:

    After the release of the car, it has been reported that while each Veyron is being sold for £840,000, the production costs of the car are approximately £5 million per vehicle. This is not the price to produce one vehicle, but rather the cost of the entire Veyron project divided by the number of vehicles produced at that time. As Bugatti, and therefore Volkswagen, are making such a loss, it has been likened by automotive journalist Jeremy Clarkson to Concorde; in that they are test-beds for advancements in technology and developed as exercises in engineering.

    So far, the oldest article I've seen claiming these numbers is this one from early 2007. By the end of 2006, fewer than 50 had been produced. If we assume this number applies to the first 50, then that means the total cost to that point was a cool £250million. Yow!

    Since then, though, another 150 have been produced. I highly doubt that it cost another £750million. In fact, this article points to most of the costs having been R&D costs with this quote:

    The seven-speed semi-automatic gearbox took 50 engineers five years to complete while with all the research and development involved,

    That's 250 man-years. If you assume each engineer costs $250K/year for labor, benefits and overhead, that's $62.5M in labor costs developing the transmission alone. Throw in all the machine work and parts and everything else, and I'm sure you easily get up to $100M development costs on the transmission alone.

    People keep throwing that £5 million per car number out there, but I seriously believe it's way out of date.

  59. WTF were they thinking? by RoboRay · · Score: 1

    No cup holder? I'll pass.

    1. Re:WTF were they thinking? by NervousNerd · · Score: 1

      What about an 8-track tape deck? That thing ain't worth 2 million dollars.

    2. Re:WTF were they thinking? by julesh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No cup holder? I'll pass.

      They likely looked at the kind of engineering problems a cup holder would present and decided it was too hard.

      Think about it: 0-60 in 2.5 seconds == 10.72m/s^2. This car accelerates at _over 1G_. The cup holder would have to automatically swivel through 45 degrees to prevent it spilling your drink when you put your foot to the floor.

    3. Re:WTF were they thinking? by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Oh, yeah... And don't forget lateral G-forces in turns at 200mph+. That would be a pretty extreme engineering challenge to design a cup-holder that would automatically tilt not only forward and back, but also side to side in response to the car movements.

      Or, you know, they could just recommend you use a lid.

  60. Re:interesting fact by diskis · · Score: 1

    Not really, Porche does own most of VW stock.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7697082.stm

  61. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by fractoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well the same holds true of lower end vehicles so I wouldn't be surprised. I remember an article (I think MOTOR or DRIVER magazine) between a Porsche GT2 and litre superbike, with the result of the $18k bike being very even with the $200k Porsche. Of course, your life expectancy on the bike is slightly lower... another similar article here.

    Then again they have different target markets. The guy on the bike got to demonstrate his incredible ballsiness, whereas the guy in the Porsche put some tunes on the stereo, flipped on the aircon and went to pick up his girlfriend. :)

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  62. I did the top speed in an S4.. by cheros · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have an unrestricted S4, and removing the limiter is the only mod it has ever had.

    Now it is 4 years old, I finally had the time and safe place to test the top speed (well, "top" as in "got clamped by the rev limited instead"), and I got to a GPS measured 268 km/h before the rev limiter kicked in. It was somewhere in Germany, I happened upon this 5km stretch of perfect viewable road by chance (and had to drive another 5km before I found a chance to return and USE it :-).

    Overtaking a row of 8 (I think) police vans at 220 km/h on cruise control during the run up was just a bonus (you know you're legal but still the nervousness remains).

    There is, however, a good argument why you won't do this for long even if it's entirely legal and you find a safe bit of road to test. With a fuel consumption of just under 60 (yes, SIXTY) liters per 100km you will need a MUCH bigger tank to get from A to B. It's ridiculously uneconomical to push such a large amount of steel over 4 wheels against the wind.

    Having said that, it's also good fun annoying BMW drivers who don't seem to know that "S4" means "brutally large factory sports tuned V8 in front, gripping on 4 wheels on sport suspension". Fnarr fnarr..

    Conversions (all approx):
    268 km/h = 166.5 mph
    60l/100km = 1.67km/l, 4.7 MPG(UK) or 3.9 MPG(US)

    Final notes for wannabees: I have had extensive high speed training. Don't try this stuff unless you're (a) stone sober and in top physical condition, (b) are 100% sure of the condition and capabilities of your car (and even then), (c) on location where such speeds are legal and (d) can do so without causing any risk to other road users (on circuit is even better) - and that's after doing some test runs.

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:I did the top speed in an S4.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psh, I did 140 (hit the speed limiter) in a bone stock 3000GT VR4. And that's a paltry 3L Turbo V6. Bonus was that when I topped off I'd still managed 22-23 MPG (Max is 24 if you've got a steady foot).

    2. Re:I did the top speed in an S4.. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Indeed, my 1.9 litre diesel will do 135mph uphill.

      I can believe that adding another 20-30mph is rather harder than the first 130 though.

    3. Re:I did the top speed in an S4.. by footnmouth · · Score: 1

      Heh, I had my 911 up to 172 in a similar situation and it was great fun. Why am I posting this? Because I'm selling it and my inner geek is very upset (note that I've repressed my inner geek as I'm actually married - I don't know why I've admitted this to Slashdot :-))

      --
      -- For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing.
    4. Re:I did the top speed in an S4.. by cheros · · Score: 1

      Heck, marriage was the argument to sell my totally over the top tuned Yamaha RD400 bike many years ago.

      I guess the S4 is an interim bike surrogate. I like it's subtlety - it just looks like a normal family car with a somewhat lowered ride, below 4000 rpm it calmly burbles through traffic and in winter claws its way up snowy roads without needing chains. Keep it above 4000 rpm and the monster under the bonnet wakes up, takes a good gulp from the tank and throws a ridiculous amount of torque to the wheels - it's almost schizophrenically different.

      I'll probably replace it with something more civilised in a year :-).

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    5. Re:I did the top speed in an S4.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      B7 S4s aren't very fast, and top speed runs don't require "extensive high speed training". The only requirements are that you aren't a jacktard and you push the throttle all the way down for a long time.

      Spouting out false rhetoric as though you were the grand vizier only shows you know next to nothing about automobiles.

      You see, I've gone that fast on road which has chicanes, sweepers, and elevation changes. (It also had rub strips and looped around into itself.)

    6. Re:I did the top speed in an S4.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Final notes for wannabees: I have had extensive high speed training. Don't try this stuff unless you're (a) stone sober and in top physical condition, (b) are 100% sure of the condition and capabilities of your car (and even then), (c) on location where such speeds are legal and (d) can do so without causing any risk to other road users (on circuit is even better) - and that's after doing some test runs.
      And (d) an arrogant douchebag with an overwhelming desire to be a menace to the public
      And (e) have a very small penis

  63. Play on player by e2d2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a younger man I used to get very upset about the gap between rich and poor, pointing to this type of excess as an example. But having accepted it as an adult, the world is not fair, I actually enjoy seeing this kind of insanity. If the rich want to blow their money on what amounts to "fluff" then so be it. We should be encouraging them every chance we can. It's when they horde it away that truly screws the poor. There's a sucker born every minute, at least with the Bugatti you get a truly well crafted machine that will be rare for the rest of your life and on and on. This machine will also appreciate in value, because like I said, there's one born every minute. If you want to piss your hard earned (or not) money, then who am I to stop you. Play on player. But bear in mind, it's still just a car. One awesome fucking car.

    1. Re:Play on player by InfiniteZero · · Score: 1

      Your story reminds me of a joke.

      Q: What does it take to change a Democrat to a Republican?

      A: 30 years.

      (Not that I'm calling you old.)

    2. Re:Play on player by guisar · · Score: 1

      I think the rich SHOULD blow their money on this type of insanity; much better than writing off that 2.1 million dollars (being picked up by you and the rest of this land's taxpayers in the form of offsetting their deduction) and being all sanctimonious about their donation to charity or building another "Microsoft wing" at MIT. Yeah, if I were that rich I'd get a Tesla but the point is this sort of excess and the fun which goes along with it is the only real useful point to being rich that I can see. Being a bitch, serving their own interests and bossing people around seems to be their normal mode of operation; I'd rather seem them out on the road enjoying themselves and leaving the rest of us to enjoy ourselves a bit more.

    3. Re:Play on player by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      It's when they horde(sic) it away that truly screws the poor.

      Really?
      Nobody just puts millions under their mattress. They invest it. They buy some tax-free municipal bonds and the city gets some cheap financing to pay off some overbudgeted new intersection buildouts or city park or whatever. They buy into a mutual fund and 100s of companies get a little more financing to fund expansion, new plants, acquisitions, etc.
      I'll tell you what overwhelmingly screws the poor.
      Lotteries, rent-to-own, drug use and drug-using relatives who leech, credit card debt, etc. Bernie Madoff isn't keeping my neighbors down, 9 times out of 10 they are. Let's not forget to mention the common attitude that it isn't cool to be smart, study, work hard and try to get ahead.
      I'm not saying it's the poor's fault that they are poor, but I am saying that anyone who makes it ahead has had to overcome a lot more cultural barriers from within the lower class than from without.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Play on player by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a younger man I used to get very upset about the gap between rich and poor, pointing to this type of excess as an example.

      What bothered me was never the gap, but the way that gap was both created and maintained. Over the last 30 years, that gap has widened considerably. And most of that gap is made from the rich getting a LOT richer under a system of rules stacked in their favour. There is very little chance of any poor person with talent and drive making it to the top, and there is almost no chance of someone with no talent, or skills, and little worth of falling from the top under any circumstances.

      Witness golden parachutes for the people who brought the world economy to its knees, while people who actually work for a living get fired left and right. This is the logically inevitable conclusion of the system that has been promoted for the last three decades.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:Play on player by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It's when they horde it away that truly screws the poor.

      True. Once a barbarian rabble have ridden off with it, it's gone for ever.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Play on player by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      As a younger man I used to get very upset about the gap between rich and poor, pointing to this type of excess as an example. But having accepted it as an adult, the world is not fair, I actually enjoy seeing this kind of insanity. If the rich want to blow their money on what amounts to "fluff" then so be it. We should be encouraging them every chance we can.

      Exactly. This car was not designed and built by other multi-millionaires for fun. Legions of middle class engineers and assembly line workers made a good living putting this, and every other rich-boy toy together. They took that money home, fed their family, sent their kids to college, and put some cash away for retirement.

      Conspicuous consumption like this is fantastic for all the people who make the products that are conspicuously consumed, and the vast majority of them are ordinary fellows.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    7. Re:Play on player by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I agree. And what you are getting at is a lack of education. This is why I preach "knowledge is power and that equals more freedoms" to my child. It's not that simple, but the message is truth - educate yourself and you can overcome these cultural obstacles better than most.

  64. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe, but doing the same run over a dirt road on a big bike is 1000 times more fun. And, you could stay in KL for the weekend.

  65. broken window by xant · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#Fallacy_of_the_argument

    They could be employed doing something worthwhile, instead. Such talented people would certainly have jobs anyway, and might be filling important engineering roles that benefit society directly, that are otherwise wanting right at this moment.

    --
    It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
    1. Re:broken window by Poorcku · · Score: 1

      this car was done as a technical exercise. see if it can be done. sure from your point of view this car is worthless, but consider the technical solutions in the veyron. for example, formula 1, ther racing forms and absurd car developers are there not only there to race, break millions of dollars, and pollute the air, but to test new technology. traction control, disc breaks, monocoques, wings etc were developed by engineers who "would benefit society directly" if employed somewhere else.

      these guys probably saved more lives than you could imagine.

      the veyron implications are huge: 407kmh with no shake, very stable and very comfortable. sure it eats 117L/100km but that is not the point of this vehicle.

      --
      I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
    2. Re:broken window by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Such talented people would certainly have jobs anyway

      I don't think this is much like the case of the broken window. Sure there are some very talented people involved who would probably get jobs somewhere else (but where do the people who's jobs they took then get jobs?), but there are also a heap of unskilled laborers and we all know what the market is like for that sort of work at the moment.

      The whole idea of the stimulus packages they keep dishing out lately is to keep money moving around. If someone can make an expensive toy that can get rich people to part with some of their money then good on them.

    3. Re:broken window by gravyface · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it was their passion about automotive engineering that has driven them to succeed and be considered "such talented people"?

      --
      body massage!
    4. Re:broken window by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#Fallacy_of_the_argument

      They could be employed doing something worthwhile, instead. Such talented people would certainly have jobs anyway, and might be filling important engineering roles that benefit society directly, that are otherwise wanting right at this moment.

      "Worthwhile" is a judgment call - what you consider worthwhile I might think a horrid waste.

      Your reference, however, points out a different economic concept - the idea that destroying something is good because you need to pay to fix it which creates jobs, while ignoring that you could of bought something else with the money, is false.

      In Bugatti's case, they are creating a product o fill a potential demand - not slashng tires and burning cars to sell new ones;, which would be more in line with the parable.

      Unfortunately, the fallacy is wide spread - such as when Southern California politicians said "at least the fires will create jobs when we rebuild."

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:broken window by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 1

      You have not understood the parable. The meaning of the parable is exactly what it says: DESTRUCTION of goods is never a good thing. In the parable, the only actual winner is the windowmaker, the shopkeeper only rationalizes it -incorrectly- through the trickle down of the money he gave to the windowmaker.

      In this particular case, the rich idiot has a direct gain -a kickass car- in exchange for his money. However futile, it is gainful to the rich idiot otherwise he would not buy it. If the shopkeeper had had no need to replace the window, he would have spent the money on things useful to him. The parable is about that (and correct to some extent): economy is a zero-sum game, by removing assets without compensation tou make it a negative sum game

    6. Re:broken window by russotto · · Score: 1

      It's not a broken window, because it misses the essential element of the destruction of value.

  66. Motorcycle vs Helicopter by Weedhopper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I believe this story about the motorcycle is true, you saw this on YouTube BECAUSE a helicopter was close by. There's plenty of guys who never make the news because they just gunned it and got away.

    A lot of cops will openly acknowledge that if a sportbike blows past them, pursuit can be futile without air support. This jives with my experience because in my youth and stupidity, I blew past manned speed traps and most of the time, it seems the cops never bothered. The one time I did see lights and pulled over, I was sorely tempted to just gun it and go. I'm utterly confident that there's no way I would have been caught if I didn't have to pretend to be a somewhat law abiding citizen.

    1. Re:Motorcycle vs Helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless there is a nice citizen like me that will assist the officer and change lanes in front of the little asshole.

      Eating median at 120mph is what the crotch rocket fuckers deserve.

    2. Re:Motorcycle vs Helicopter by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to know how the odds of getting away have changed with the increase in use of cameras and automated enforcement. Unless you are driving a stolen vehicle, have false plates, or have obscured your plate, a simple picture will give them everything they need to mail you a ticket, or a summons, or stake out your house, or whatever.

      Most of the time, the risk of crime isn't in being caught right then; but in, if you are IDed, having to avoid the man for years afterward. You have to sleep sometime, after all.

    3. Re:Motorcycle vs Helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So did a friend of mine. After blowing through a speed trap he decided to gun it and make a run for it (no insurance, borrowed tags, no motorocycle license etc. He figured he was going to be in big trouble anyway).

      He drove up the double yellow line on roads fairly straight and well known to him. Because of other cars he couldn't make the turn off he intended. As he crossed a dam, he happened to glance back in the rear view mirror and noticed the cop was still behind him (way back but still in the chase). That glance back was enough for him not to notice/judge the upcoming curve in the road. He hit the guard rail with enough force to break his leg on the handle bars. Fortunately landing in relatively soft underbrush. Unfortunately the cop jumped on his back when making the arrest. Fortunately the cop was so up on adrenaline he only signed 4 out the 8 tickets.

      Judging by his tachometer, he was doing approximately 140mph - at least in some sections. That is significantly faster than the patrol car could do (maybe 125). As the police proved, they don't actually have to catch up and pass you. Just be there when the wreck happens.

      The moral is this - a cop only has to follow you. Any mistake he/she makes and at worst you get away. You are the battering ram of sorts. You scare the critters, the other traffic etc. and hopefully they get out of the way. You are doing the navigation. The cop just sits back and watches. Ditto for any helicopter. Eventually you will run out of gas or luck.

    4. Re:Motorcycle vs Helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piss them off bad enough and you will be caught... it usually takes multiple impressions before they recognize you and/or your bike from previous offenses, if you only act stupid once in each locality, your chances of getting away are pretty good, but if they get it in their heads that you are a true public menace, they can organize a "dragnet" by radio. Idiots on sport bikes are too common to draw that much police resource, unless you frightened their wife's chiuaua or something.

    5. Re:Motorcycle vs Helicopter by Boinger69 · · Score: 1

      Eating median at 120mph is what the crotch rocket fuckers deserve.

      I seriously hope you die in a fiery collision with a gas truck.

    6. Re:Motorcycle vs Helicopter by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      I think your friend violated Rule Number One of the Chase, which is don't look back. Again, not that I would condone that kind of thing. Anymore. It's stupid.

      That said, a guy on a sportbike is not just faster but much more maneuverable as well as less visible.

      Like you said, all the cop has to do is follow, but all I have to do is make him lose sight of me just long enough for me to choose another direction.

    7. Re:Motorcycle vs Helicopter by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          It's a very very very bad idea to get involved in a police chase.

          Just because there's a patrol car following a motorcycle at high rates of speed doesn't mean anything. What if the motorcycle driver was an off-duty officer, and they were both rushing to an incident? What if the motorcycle was going to be only one who could keep up with whatever other vehicle they were chasing? Most police don't have lights on their off-duty vehicles. That varies by location though. I knew a cop in a small town who had a Porsche. He had lights on the dash. You couldn't really see them until he turned them on. He could keep up with fast cars, where the regular patrol cars couldn't, and it was sanctioned by the police chief.

          Now, if you see a car run a cop off the road, and it's a fast car, AND you have a fast car, pull over and help the cop. Tell him to get in, and he can tell you what to do. You won't be making the stop, but you can keep visibility on the suspect. He may be very thankful for the assistance.

          You aren't a cop, and you don't have a police radio, so you don't know the circumstances of what's happening. Just stay out of their way. They'd rather make an arrest than deal with a fatality during a chase.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:Motorcycle vs Helicopter by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      There have been a bunch of tests of motorcycle vs fast cars. Just check the archives of magazines like Motortrend, Automobile or Road and Track.

      It always ends up a tie because the cycle does much better on acceleration and on straights, the car does better on the twisty bits.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  67. The fastest production car... by incense · · Score: 3, Informative

    The fastest production car is not the Bugatti, but the SSC Ultimate Aero TT. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_car

    --
    testing 1 2 3
    1. Re:The fastest production car... by julesh · · Score: 1

      The fastest production car is not the Bugatti, but the SSC Ultimate Aero TT. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_car

      The model that set that record is no longer in production. A replacement model is available, but its top speed hasn't been verified.

    2. Re:The fastest production car... by Oblong_Cheese · · Score: 1

      It has the highest top speed, granted.

      But it is not the most impressive. Compare the interior of the Ultimate Aero and the Veyron: there is no comparison. The Aero is a race chassis with a huge engine and little in the way of comfort. The Veyron has an option of magnesium indicator stalks to look awesome, and to save weight!

      Also, if you watch the episode of Top Gear UK where James May tests the Veyron to its top speed, they make mention after the film that the car is "totally undramatic" at such ridiculous speeds, and compare this to the fact that in all other hypercars which are capable of similar speeds, you feel as though the car is at its limits, whereas in the Veyron it is comfortable and quiet.

  68. Chance to get it back by thaig · · Score: 1

    Making silly luxuries for the rich is the poor man's chance to get some of that wealth back at an advantageous rate:-)

    --
    This is all just my personal opinion.
    1. Re:Chance to get it back by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Making silly luxuries for the rich is the poor man's chance to get some of that wealth back at an advantageous rate:-)

      Slightly OT but Tom Cruise and family are in my home town this week. Apparently Mrs Cruise blew 5*10^4 .au dollars on an alligator skin handbag. My guess is that shops in the right location keep stock especially for the occasional shopper with Way Too Much Money to spend.

  69. Re:If I ever see.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1, Redundant

    He has a black belt in keyboardarate.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  70. Needed to be said by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    I've run out of mod points, so I'll just congratulate you on saying what needed to be said. One thing: if I knew who the grandparent was, I'd certainly never get in a car with him. With anger management issues like those, he'd most like be a terrifying driver.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Needed to be said by tsa · · Score: 1

      I hope he's not old enough to have his driver's licence yet. And thanks for the thumbs up!

      --

      -- Cheers!

  71. And why's that ridiculus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Killer machines like fighter airplanes, tanks etc which *we pay* with our tax money cost similar amounts of $$$. And no one complains. So where's the problem? It is just a car.

    Furthermore, there are plenty of footballers, TV stars and so on who earn a lot of money just because they're lucky. Do they worth their money?

    And BTW the car is not so ugly.

  72. Too much hyperbole by dalesc · · Score: 1

    It may be extreme and excessive in some departments but not all as the author would like you to believe. That sort of acceleration has been commonplace on sports motorbikes for years and my eyeballs haven't deformed yet.

  73. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  74. At 400 km the fuel runs out in only 12 minutes ... by egghat · · Score: 1

    "But that's OK, cause the fuel runs out in only 12 minutes."

    Unbelievable.

    The problem with the tires is, that they are f***ing expensive. Around 4.000 Euros (> 5.000 Dollars) per set. At 400 km/h you'll need a new set every 12 minutes ...

    --
    -- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
  75. ugly much by luigi517 · · Score: 1

    that is the ugliest 2.1 million dollars I have ever seen

  76. Newest addition? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    That thing is OLD! It is in production since 2005! Or am I just getting a "you must be new here" for stating the obvious?

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Newest addition? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Um, this is a Veyron convertible. It's different than the old one.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Newest addition? by Totenglocke · · Score: 1

      The Veyron has been around since 2005 -- this is the new convertible version.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
  77. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    even if the cops bought a Veyron, they'd be eating your dust ...

    Probably not for long. :-) It would probably take a whole tankful of petrol to get up to 420 km/h. They could probably catch you by getting out of their cars and walking a few hundred yards.

  78. The greatest achievements of the petroleum age? by AC-x · · Score: 1

    The first Veyron is an engineering marvel... It stands as one of the greatest achievements of the petroleum age.

    O RLY?

    Top Gear's power laps say otherwise.

    1. Re:The greatest achievements of the petroleum age? by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Lap speed on the Top Gear track is not the same as top speed, nor does it inconclusively prove that any car is better than another.

  79. It may be ridiculous.... by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    ...but it will get you a blowjob easier than a PHD in physics would. :o(

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:It may be ridiculous.... by maxume · · Score: 1

      So will some small amount of currency.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:It may be ridiculous.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. expensive BJ. Weddings are cheaper... hell, so is dating.

    3. Re:It may be ridiculous.... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way: That car costs as much as 10^5 blow jobs.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  80. Well the owning company says it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or should that more correctly read It's a BOLLOCKS WAGON (oh sorry for the wets out there it's a volkswagon ) still a load of bollocks mind when they shed the bollocks wagon grip they may just become a worth a look company other wise even if i was the richest person in the world it'd a BOLLOCKS WAGON it is a load of BOLLOCKS much like BMW there is another load of BOLLOCKS .

    You can always tell the standard of the drug dealer by the perticular german vehicle he drives Golf lowest of the low Golf GTI (got twat inside) next one up the ladder.
    BMW 3 series a bit futher up JERCADES (mercedes) heading up the top .
    German engineering so grosley over rated it is un true

  81. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those who buy a Veyron, don't care about its price tag, or the fact that it would pay for so-many-more Ferraris, Mercedes or other "commoner" crap. End of story. Let them enjoy their toys and go back to your Nissan Micras. Now, please, move along. Nothing to see here.

  82. Art by heson · · Score: 1

    This is an engineering/art masterpiece. Some like to own those, others like me are happy enough watching them at a museum or on Top Gear.

    1. Re:Art by metaforest · · Score: 1

      Gee when the world economies crash for good, global warming floods out the costal cities of the world, and we are all contemplating a MadMax existence, the few and wealthy will be glad they invested in a get away... station wagon.... >_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Barchetta future...

  83. Re:If I ever see.. by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 5, Insightful

    hmm, you must be a have-not. I'm sure you can afford to own a notebook, right? In that case, by your childish have-not logic, you deserve to be butt-hole dry-fucked by a night prowler, then have your notebook stolen.

    You deserve it at the very least.

    Why is it that people with the wherewithal who simply live their lives are branded as cunts who deserve to be robbed, killed, sneered at and have there decent piece of engineering keyed by pimply-faced have-nots?

    I suggest to you, Anonymous Coward, that you are indeed an anonymous coward ashamed of your own simmering mediocrity. You are, furthermore, a fucking communist who bites the very hand that feeds it. Go join Osama bin fucking Laden and his bearded closet gays who enjoy destroying instead of building. You don't deserve to be part of a civilised society which aspires to build, improve, learn, live a productive and long life raising beautiful children and leave a legacy.

    I'd like to thank you for reminding me that the world is full of little shits like you who do not deserve to be gainfully employed (I filter out your kind all the time when employing - your thin veneer of civility does not hide the pus in your soul). I enjoy superior engineering, the same way you enjoy your decently engineered notebook. Linus drives an old German merc (remember, these things are all relative) who, by your reasoning, has the money for it, and therefore deserves to have his beautiful piece of human engineering keyed, because hey, you can't afford one.

    And please, don't blather about how you cannot compare an old merc to a Bugatti. If you do, then I'm sure you won't even hear the whoosh.

  84. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Whoop-de-do. At the speeds the Veyron is happy at, a single pebble on a turn would send a motorcycle flying and its owner into the organ donor parts bin. People talk about motorcycle top speed, but they can only reach it safely if the road is perfectly straight and it has absolutely zero debris on it. Otherwise, its just a cooler way than a firearm for heading to the next life.

  85. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    You are comparing cars and motorcycles, two completely different beasts. And yes, it does matter whether the vehicle is street-legal or not. And there are more to vehicles that mere acceleration-figures and top-speeds.

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  86. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you cannot resist the urge to commit a felony (destruction of property over $1000 in almost any area of the US is a felony) and face prison time because someone chose to sink some of their cash into an expensive vehicle.

    Wow, I'd hate to let you near a data center, because it isn't that much of a jump from keying someone's car to trashing a business's livelihood.

    Good luck finding a job other than stirring carrots with an oar in a prison kitchen for two cents an hour with that attitude.

  87. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Tamran · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a wise police officer once told me: "You can't outrun radio waves, son"

  88. Re:At 400 km the fuel runs out in only 12 minutes by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you can afford the car, the ticket price on the tires isn't even going to make you wince.

    --
    "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
  89. Re:interesting fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sincerely hope VW is not remotely stupid enough to even consider buying GM.

  90. Re:At 400 km the fuel runs out in only 12 minutes by Sobrique · · Score: 2, Funny

    The support vehicle carrying your spares on the other hand, is a bit more of an issue...

  91. Re:If I ever see.. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    But I'm not a yank. Thats why.

  92. Re:If I ever see.. by SlashWombat · · Score: 1

    If I ever see someone drive one of those I'd fucking key it. You have the money for that, you deserve to have it keyed at the very least.

    Smart move ... someone with that much money would also have no trouble finding the few grand it would take to have you permanently removed from the planet. (IMHO, pity it would cost him that much!)

  93. Re:If I ever see.. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    Well, of course. See, I don't have the money to buy any car at the moment. So all car owners should be shot and then the people shooting them should shoot themselves because I can't afford a gun either (well, theoretically I could but it wouldn't be financially responsible, which should suffice as a reason for mass suicide). At some point we can stop killing people because the world economy has collapsed and money doesn't work anymore, thus nobody can buy anything. Problem solved.

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  94. Re:interesting fact by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    Lamborghini is owned by Audi, which in turn is part of the Volkswagen Group. Oh, and if anything, it's the Volkswagen Group who own Porsche, and that only partially. The Volkswagen Group consists out of: Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Skoda, Seat and (obviously) Volkswagen.

  95. Re:interesting fact by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

    if anything, it's the Volkswagen Group who own Porsche

    Oops.... Seems, I'm wrong. Now that's surprising. I always heard it was the other way around.

  96. Re:At 400 km the fuel runs out in only 12 minutes by mcvos · · Score: 1

    The problem with the tires is, that they are f***ing expensive. Around 4.000 Euros (> 5.000 Dollars) per set.

    So what? The car itself is $2.1 million. It's not meant for people who worry about burning a few thousand dollar. It's an "if you have to ask what it costs, it's not for you" car. If you've already got a fleet of private jets, a 1000-foot yacht and a private island and you still have more money left than you can count, then you buy this car. And you'll probably never use it.

  97. Re:At 400 km the fuel runs out in only 12 minutes by Sehnsucht · · Score: 1

    Just get a Renault Espace F1

  98. You don't own money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Money is owned by the organisation which produces it. It is distributed with complex rules defining who can receive it and in what circumstances. Those rules are designed by people who already have money to ensure that the system favours them over those who do not already have it. Without money your access to the essentials of life will be severely limited.

    Ability, hard work, and chance are all factors in the creation of personal wealth, but let's not forget the skewed set of rules which make it harder for the poor to accumulate money compared with the relative ease with which the already rich accumulate it.

  99. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by KahabutDieDrake · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was told that once. My response did not win me any favors. You can't outrun them, but you can jam them.

  100. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

    You can get 250mp/h motorcycles for much less than $550k.

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  101. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

    Absolute rubbish..

    --
    I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  102. Re:If I ever see.. by Danathar · · Score: 1

    If you can afford to buy it, you can afford to replace it.

  103. Re:Hell No, I guess by rsunny · · Score: 1

    You mount those 1 Us on a SSC Ultimate Aero , you got yourself the fastest datacenter. 413> 407

  104. Re:If I ever see.. by Bertie · · Score: 1

    Well the story goes that it costs about three times as much to make as they ask for it. The price is pretty arbitrary and set where it is just to take the car out of reach of nearly, but not quite, everyone. The Veyron purely the result of an engineering challenge, a way of showing off what they can do when they put their minds to it. If they're hoping to get anything out of it, it's a halo effect which will make people think differently about how they build their other cars, the ones people can actually afford.

  105. Nickel toxicity by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    Standard steel is NOT about 10% nickel, which suggests that you too are not terribly au fait with basic metallurgy. It contains hardly any, which is why it is cheap. Stainless steel (inox) is about 18% nickel, and the nickel is in the form of metal with (obviously) a low corrosion rate. The Bugatti will most likely contain very little nickel; more likely plain steel, aluminum and titanium, none of which are toxic. The principle of operation of a battery is that the nickel is reacted chemically to cause the flow of electrons: therefore, a part of the nickel is always in either a compound with other substances, or a finely divided state, and therefore represents a toxic hazard if released into the environment since it will spread rapidly. You cannot dispose of them by the normal domestic route, and you would be prosecuted (rightly) if you tried. Lead is not much worse; long experience with the manufacture of lead acid batteries in volume, and knowledge about recycling, has resulted in very low releases of lead. The actual toxicity of lead is such that it is allowed for roof cladding in many parts of the world. Add to that that a typical car battery contains maybe 10kg of lead versus perhaps 3 times as much nickel in the Prius.

    The problem with the Prius is that while they are rare, the nickel isn't a serious problem, but if they became as common as, say, Diesel cars in Europe, then the environmental implications of the amount of nickel used would indeed be horrendous. It's a technical dead end, which is why all the focus is on lithium batteries.

    The "dust to dust" study was interesting and actually made some very good technical points which the hybrid supporters didn't like. It wasn't debunked; its assumptions were challenged. But its overall conclusion - that it is better for the environment to make very long lasting vehicles out of low cost materials and run them for very high mileages - remains absolutely correct.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Nickel toxicity by Spoke · · Score: 1

      A quick google search reveals that if you can't find a place to properly recycle your NiMH battery, it is safe (and legal) to dispose of it in the landfill. The point is moot - both Toyota and Honda willingly would take your battery for recycling if it happened to fail. Toyota even pays you $200 to do so.

      The primary reason that the focus is on lithium batteries instead of NiMH batteries is not because of the nickel content, it's because NiMH batteries have limited power and energy density compared to lithium batteries - not to mention that lithium is a safer/cheaper material than nickel to use.

      The "dust to dust" study made outrageous assumptions like that a Hummer would run 250k miles before being retired and that the Prius would run something like 100k. It also made outrageous assumptions in the energy cost of production compared to the energy cost of operation.

      The energy cost of operation of a vehicle by far outweighs the energy costs of production. Any added energy costs due to battery manufacture are quickly gained back by the gains in efficiency.

      Common sense tells you that it's better to keep on using an old product rather than replacing it with a new one of the same efficiency. But hey, if everyone only had efficiency on their mind, the roads would be filled with old Geo Metros.

    2. Re:Nickel toxicity by Spoke · · Score: 1

      BTW, thanks for setting me straight on the plain steel vs stainless steel nickel content. I was totally off on that one.

      But I did find some other interesting figures from this site: http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200711/mrgreen_mailbag.asp#headaches

      In any case, Prius batteries, which contain 32 pounds of nickel each, require only a fraction of the world's supply. More than 94 percent of the 1.55 million tons of nickel mined each year is used for stainless steel, alloys, and electroplating. So the batteries for the one million hybrids Toyota has sold so far have required only one percent of the world's annual nickel-mining production. Since the estimates on nickel recycling indicate about 80 percent is being reused, a million Priuses' share of newly mined nickel would really only be about two-tenths of one percent.

      Toyota expects to sell about 200,000 Prius worldwide this year that would be about 3,200 tons of nickel or about 0.04% of worldwide nickel consumption (assuming that there is still 1.55 million tons of nickel mined each year and that about 80% of nickel used is recycled). Even if no nickel is recovered through recycling, the Prius battery pack would only use about 0.2% of worldwide nickel consumption.

  106. Missing the Pont by clickclickdrone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As Top Gear pointed out, yes it is insanely expensive, insanely fast and insanely high tech. However, with oil prices and availability going the way it is, plus increased green awareness, the Veyron probably represents the pinnacle that petrol based cars will ever achieve. This is it.
    They are also all sold at a considerable loss - they cost much more to build than they sell for. It's a final swansong excercise in ultimate car technology. Sure, they'll be cool and funky stuff along later but for this sort of vehicle, it's the top dog. As such, I admire it as an excercise is engineering and beauty.
    However, it is also (to my mind) an obscene way to spend your money.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Missing the Pont by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      They are also all sold at a considerable loss - they cost much more to build than they sell for.

      They don't. They are only sold at a loss if you consider R&D that went into the car (and even then simply because there are so few cars that are going to be sold, and because a lot of that R&D is entirely useless for a practical car, and thus wasted). Manufacturing cost is definitely nowhere even near $2mil.

    2. Re:Missing the Pont by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      You may well be right (just reporting what Top Gear said) but they did say that as an example, a single indicator arm, as used on the steering wheel was GBP1000.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  107. Re:If I ever see.. by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    I'd take this moment to point out that the Porsche group owns a majority stake in VW, mot the other way around.

  108. I dont see what all the fuss is. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    sure bugatti carries an exclusive pricetag, but its not THAT expensive. i traded my old one in last month for $450k so i could upgrade to this years model with IPod support.

    now, ive heard slashdotters ramble on about global warming and of course im concerned as well. To make sure i dont contribute to the problem i make sure the tires are always properly inflated so they never get too hot on the road. I also try to park in the garage so i dont reflect any o-zone into the atmosphere.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  109. Re:At 400 km the fuel runs out in only 12 minutes by egghat · · Score: 1

    The price of the Veyron will never be lower than now. At least there's a rather good chance of climbing prices for this car as for a lot of other supercars before. A used McLaren F1 is now twice the price a new McLaren F1 was ten years ago.

    4.000 Euros for a set of tires are not a problem. But 4.000 Euros every 12 minutes is a different beast ..

    --
    -- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
  110. Guilty conscience? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guilty over what? I find that guilt is a useless emotion unless one has actually wronged someone else. Enjoying the fruits of your labor rewards self and rewards others who's job it was to design, build, and sell that car. Guilty about the fuel consumption? Nope. That ONE car will never use as much fuel in it's lifetime as a single 767 flight across the Atlantic. Guilty about Global Warming? Nope. Man-made Global Warming is being discredited at a growing rate, hence Congress' mad rush to cram through the Waxman-Markey bill before all of Al Gore's investments are stranded.

  111. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by budgenator · · Score: 1

    The tires wear out in about 50 minutes at top speed, fuel lasts for 12 minutes and there are only a few places on the planet with enough roll-out to get up to it.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  112. Re:If I ever see.. by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    This is why, despite my passion for cars, I could never own a Ferrari.

    I'd rather have a sleeper that I could drive, than a show car I had to haul.

  113. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    As a motorcyclist: Let me say that while I'd enjoy playing around with one of those, I'd rather drive a ford focus to work every day than that thing (I don't own a car.)

    The Tomohawk is neat, but it's not a serious motorcycle.

  114. Why spend $2m when you can spend .80? by Niubi · · Score: 1

    Lol, 2 million bucks for a car? That's just dumb when you can get a brand new Harley Davidson for 80 cents. Plus the Harley's way cooler. Don't believe me? Check it out. Only 11 days to go... http://us.dubli.com/Harley-Davidson-2009-FLHX-Street-Glide__3_1337

  115. Re:If I ever see.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    And, you could stay in KL for the weekend.

    Are there hookers and blackjack there?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  116. I want two by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

    When I got to the point that it could out fly helicopters.... hoo boy.

    The top-down is limited to a mere 217 MPH? I really, really hope no one takes a dog along for one of those rides. You know how dogs like to stick their heads out the window? Here, either the dog becomes a kite or its head inverts.

    This is assigned to the BatCave of coolness. I love reading about the engineering aspects. Just the concept of producing a car that can go over 200 MPH with no top (that's insane aerodynamics) and not rip apart the whole thing? Add wings and the thing could glide for, well maybe 200 feet (it is 4000 pounds), but still! Need to find more info about the engine.

    --
    Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    1. Re:I want two by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      When I got to the point that it could out fly helicopters

      Only on straight, long, roads. In the conditions where it can out fly a helicopter, a light aircraft will do better. Anywhere else, you'll be breaking and turning too much to get anywhere close to the top speed.

      I can't imagine spending that much money on a vehicle and getting something that can't fly.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:I want two by PPH · · Score: 1

      When I got to the point that it could out fly helicopters.... hoo boy.

      Not when the left lane is clogged up with landscapers pickup trucks dragging lawnmowers and little old ladies in Volvos.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  117. All cars use a lot of energy by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's one of the reasons why there's so much interest in making them more efficient. Small percentage gains can equal a lot of energy gains. You will find that an average house can be serviced quite nicely by a smallish car engine. That is, in fact, precisely what medium sized backup generators use. They are automobile engines modified to run on propane or natural gas (sometimes they are diesel but usually NG for smaller units since you have a feed to your house). A 4 cylinder, 1.6 liter engine running at 3500rpm will give you 30kw of power and thus power an average house no problem.

    Cars use a ton of energy compared to most other personal uses.

    1. Re:All cars use a lot of energy by david.given · · Score: 1

      A 4 cylinder, 1.6 liter engine running at 3500rpm will give you 30kw of power and thus power an average house no problem.

      I gather that if you live in the kind of climate where you need heating, you can scavenge the waste heat from the engine; the resulting heat-and-power combination apparently beats the pants off most other systems for efficiency.

      Pity about the noise, really; I once passed an apartment block with one of these things, and it sounded exactly like it had a small car engine in the basement. No wonder, really.

  118. Re:If I ever see.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    it isn't that much of a jump from keying someone's car to trashing a business's livelihood.

    I've never seen a business's livelihood blocking the sidewalk, but if I did I probably would key it.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  119. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a wise police officer once told me: "You can't outrun radio waves, son"

    At that speed, you don't have to ... if they can't read the license plate, or even see if there IS a license plate, they can't do a whole heck of a lot. 300 to 400 mph is FAST. A friend of mine actually managed to make a stock car street legal, and he told me that, at the speeds he would do once a year (he only did about 1,500 miles per year with it, since it needed a complete engine rebuild after a few "runs"), "you know the striped lane dividers - at that speed, it's a solid white line." He blew by a radar trap, drove for a few more minutes, and parked in a restaurant. 10 minutes later, the cops came in, arguing as to whether the car in the parking lot was his. After they told him that they couldn't make a positive identification, they asked him to open the hood, just so they could take a look-see. They were impressed.

  120. It's also harder these days by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The government wants their share of the money. They've made it more difficult to leave a massive amount to your heirs and not have a good portion taken in tax. Back in the day, money could basically be perpetually kept in the family so you could stay rich generation to generation. That is not nearly so easy now. Not saying there aren't plenty of creative ways to try and shield it, but it is harder. The government is likely to take a portion, and that reduces the amount of time that you can have a wealthy family that doesn't do anything.

    1. Re:It's also harder these days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government wants their share of the money. They've made it more difficult to leave a massive amount to your heirs and not have a good portion taken in tax. Back in the day, money could basically be perpetually kept in the family so you could stay rich generation to generation. That is not nearly so easy now. Not saying there aren't plenty of creative ways to try and shield it, but it is harder. The government is likely to take a portion, and that reduces the amount of time that you can have a wealthy family that doesn't do anything.

      Which is in MHO, all for the better. These heirs have been given the best preparation and opportunities to succeed that money and influence can provide. They, of all people, should be able to find someway to lead both both productive and personally profitable lives.

  121. Just proves there's a market for anything by derspankster · · Score: 0

    Somewhere there's a few well heeled individuals that just have to own something like this. And, it is a massive engineering feat. I have no doubt that beneficial technology will trickle down to the manufacturing of real practical transportation.

  122. jealousy by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    All of you who keep trying to find excuses not to say this is a cool piece of equipment are just jealous. There are carmakers on this planet who have the knowledge, the manpower, the money, the vision to create, build and sell such machines. And this is awesome. Now come on, your wildest car-dreams probably wasn't about a Jetta, or a Civic. I really like to see such cars being built, not just for the speed and power, but for the quality of the whole package, the style, and the looks. We need the almost-insanely-above-the-higher-end category too :) :P

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  123. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Lumpy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    How about the fact that the Bugatti is a far better car in every way than ALL the mercedes models combined.

    the Article poster is being ridiculous, why not compare it to the number of Honda-fit's it can buy.

    The Veyron can kick the ass of the fastest Fararri by a HUGE margin. Hell it eats all other car makers supercars by a HUGE margin. It is where supercars should be right now. Not like the joke that is the GTR skyline, the Audi R3 or other economy priced "used to be super" cars.

    Plus the price is dead on the mark for a hand made custom, which is what the Veyron is. The car is designed for those that have far more money than most here can imagine. Dropping under $2.5 mill on a sportscar is nothing to those that drop $10-$15Mill on their skiing villa in Aspen.

    It's designed for those that make more in a day on a 0.25% savings account in interest than almost all of you make in a year.

    P.S. the Veyron is not a ridiculous car. it was designed as a supercar.

    The Rolls Royce Drophead is the words most ridiculous car. It's a joke. Basically a convertible land yacht that steers like a cow and has medicore performance at best.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  124. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Antidamage · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The Ferrari FXX is faster and better performing than the Bugatti Veyron. Just saying.

  125. Re:If I ever see.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Why?

    go buy a Ferrari 308 you can get a good one for under $30K rip out the crappy Fararri engine and drivetrain and install a Pontiac 3.4 and you now have a reliable car that is cheap to work on and actually has some power unlike the raging crap that is the Ferrari Engine in the 308.

    I know this well, I have done it for a friend, but we used a Grand am 3800sc engine and tranny. And yes an automatic Ferrari with cruise control is a very good thing. WE got his car for $11,900 with a blown engine but immaculate paint and interior. Took us 4 weekends to swap in a real drive train. If he crashes it tomorrow he can easily afford another.

    Ferrari's are a dime a dozen if you dont have to drive a 2010 model.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  126. but if it's speed you want..... by muzicman · · Score: 1

    Again not street legal http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flamebait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  127. Re:If I ever see.. by horza · · Score: 1

    I ever caught you keying ANY car, I'd break your fucking legs. People who key cars are UNIVERSALLY cowards.

    There, fixed that for you.

    Phillip.

  128. Re:If I ever see.. by Weeksauce · · Score: 1

    Additionally, it should be noted that GAAP accounting allows for very different allocation of R&D accross the parent corp (transfering pricing of production to other business units) versus other expenses (i.e. materials and labor). Although you may be viewing something as being produced at a loss, you need to look at the after tax, after accounting booking of the entry. Hell accounting is the main reason GM ramped up production just to have cars sit on lots for years.

    --
    An inventor is a man who asks 'Why?' of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.
  129. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by hb253 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Save your energy. Most Slashdot posters are not "car" people and simply don't get it. No amount of argument will penetrate their opinions.

    --
    Self awareness - try it!
  130. ssc aero anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The funny thing is that the Veyron hasn't even been the fastest street legal car for years now, it's just the one that everyone keeps hearing about. I believe the fastest is from an American company: Shelby Motors. it's called the SSC Aero.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSC_Aero

  131. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by nightsweat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but just try to bring the groceries home on the bike. Completely impractical. Maybe if you added a trailer of some sort...

    --

    the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
  132. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by pato101 · · Score: 1

    even if the cops bought a Veyron, they'd be eating your dust ...

    except when you reach to the first curve.

  133. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by MadnessASAP · · Score: 3, Funny

    But they are quite good at coming up with ridiculous car analogies. Also I might as well mention that I would be willing to cut off a testicle in exchange for a Veyron.

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  134. Re:If I ever see.. by Fred_A · · Score: 1

    Why? The Veyron is an incredible piece of engineering. Bugatti sell them at a LOSS if I recall. The workmanship is astounding.

    They sell it at a loss because they love you.

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  135. 1000 HP+ Grand National by sleigher · · Score: 1

    1000+ HP is maybe hard to achieve. But not unobtainable. Certainly not $2.1 million though. Jeeze.....

    --
    All points of time and space are connected.
  136. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

    I guess you missed this part: "But even when attacking some seriously hairy turns from deep in triple digits, the Veyron never gave up its grip. And when we almost blew it on a butt-puckering downhill double-apex, the all-wheel-drive system put power in just the right place to pull the car back in line."

  137. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    If you can afford $550,000 for the bike, you aren't worried about groceries - you can always eat out. Or, if you've blown the budget on this thing, just harvest the road kill from your 300mph cruises (though if you hit a moose, you're dead anyway).

  138. Re:If I ever see.. by dknight · · Score: 2, Funny

    that's just dumb
    my wife has a Lotus. We park it in the driveway (not garaged). She drives it to work every day and parks it in the parking lot next to all the other cars.

    if you are so worried about the car that you cant enjoy it, why the hell would you buy it?

  139. Benefits by dazedNconfuzed · · Score: 1

    Strange how much human accomplishment and progress comes from contemplation of the irrelevant. - Scott Kim.

    --
    Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
  140. 2008 SSC Ultimate Aero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe no one has mentioned this car (at least that I saw). Give this a look, it is not only faster it costs a lot less.

    http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=275184

  141. Sweet Baby by Udigs · · Score: 1

    ...Jesus

  142. Re:If I ever see.. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    I looked at Bugatti's website, what other cars do they make (presently) besides the Veyron? I think they make a centenial version (a blue Veyron) but that's it.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  143. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're not allowed to jam them, but you're under no obligation to return them.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  144. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the other testicle to pay the running costs?

  145. Save your money... by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    ...a penis extension can be had for a lot less than 2.1 million these days...

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  146. No NO NO NO NO!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Slashdot. Don't you know that OMG teh rich pay an unfair share of taxes while teh poor get off lazy and scot free? Someone quickly mod this guy down before our Libertarian values are threatened!

  147. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there is one time keying cars is OK. When the ahole driving it comes close enough to hit the pedestrian in the crosswalk for said pedestrian to key the car ...

  148. Re:If I ever see.. by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 1

    "I ever caught you keying ANY car, I'd break your fucking legs."

    What if it was owned by Chad Kroger?

    --
    "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
  149. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Erm, 300-400 MILES per hour? Nothing street legal gets anywhere near that.

    --
    Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  150. Can't get a 2010 Camaro to top speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least not yet, see above -- not many places to try and my own condition.

    Not all this engineering is going to waste on any of these hyper fast cars.
    The Camaro gets over 20 mpg on twisty mountain roads, with a fairly lead foot.
    I'll have to take it on a long trip to see if I can get the advertised 25, which I probably can, as I generally exceed the ratings on other cars when driven carefully.

    Think of what would happen if you got rid of half the weight and 2/3 of the engine.
    You'd have a 50+ mpg car that would still be an outrageous hot rod. The Camaro (SS of course) with ~450hp is essentially a formula car with license plates. Mine got super tuned at GM performance center on it's way to me, and the HP is very approximate, but it's WAY up there.

    And despite what people say, GM *is* building a car people want, if I judge merely by the appreciative crowds it draws every time I stop.

    Back in the day, when I was a pro racer, we used to bench race on what would be the perfect street car. Here it is, finally, right down to the compression and cam timing. Those 275x20 Pirelli's and huge disk brakes are kind of nice...and required, the car is traction limited in the first few gears even so.

  151. Re:If I ever see.. by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 1

    Oh please. Who wants to bet that at least some Veyron owners will be members of middle eastern royal (oil) families who are wealthy simply because they were the descendants of tyrants. And, given his previous form, I would not be surprised if Kim Jong-Il will obtain one of these cars.

    Market economies do not necessarily distribute wealth according to desert or to hard work. Often there's a fair amount of luck and timing involved. Markets have nothing to do with intrinsic worth or desert. We have them because they produce good outcomes in a wide variety of human activities. People who argue otherwise invariably end up either discrediting the actual market economy we have, or appealing to magical thinking.

    Despite that, the Veyron is a beautiful, if impractical car. To be honest, I'd rather have Nissan's GTR, which I like better and which is a practical road car.

    --
    "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
  152. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fair point. I'd be willing to cut off one of your testicles for a Veyron, too!

  153. 1000+HP for how long? A few seconds? by name_already_taken · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wouldn't want to ride in a Buick Grand National doing over 200MPH. Seriously, that car is based on the Buick Regal, a car designed for the regular driving public to drive around town at "normal" speeds. It'd probably be quite dangerous at anything north of 140. The factory did no optimization of the aerodynamics or the suspension for those kinds of speeds.

    Furthermore, the car in the video is modified within an inch of its life. You'll notice that there aren't even any air filters on the turbo intakes, and it sounds like there isn't much of an exhaust system. Also, chances are good that the drivetrain would self destruct pretty rapidly if the maximum power output was achieved for more than a few seconds.

    The Veyron, on the other hand, can hold its maximum speed until the tires self destruct (about 14 minutes, I think), and it can be driven in traffic without worrying about dirt damaging the engine, or having to yell over the sound of the engine. If someone made tires that would survive longer at those speeds you'd only be limited by the length of the road and the fuel tank capacity. Still, wouldn't it be cheaper to buy into something like Netjets if you need to get somewhere that fast?

    The Buick Grand National was a neat car for its time (with a whopping, what 245HP stock?), and people have gotten impressive power and fuel economy out of them, but it's not really comparable to the Veyron.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  154. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Big+Smirk · · Score: 1

    Or this for an alternative [Jalopnik]
    0-210mph in 7 seconds. That works out to 0-60 in about 1 second. That being on a car that can (as claimed in the article) get 11 mpg and runs on normal 'pump' gasoline and utilizes DOT approved tires.

    That Corvette is at least the _quickest_ street legal car. I wonder where the top speed would be. At some point the aerodynamics has to make it flat out dangerous to travel at that speed.

    Since it is a '63 corvette. That predates many (all?) of the DOT safety requirements so he can, for example, legally replace his seat belts with a 5-point harness. (Yes removing or altering safety equipment is illegal - you need to keep those stock, DOT approved, seat belts). It also pre-dates any emission control regulations.

    At one point Maryland (my home state) had a requirement for window defroster. I wonder if the vette needed/has that?

    --
    TODO: create/find/steal funny sig.
  155. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by afidel · · Score: 1

    Uh, no, it's not unless you are referring to lap times which is not what the Veyron is about. The Veyron is not a race car, it is a supercar with the singular goal of being the fastest production car in the world. Both cars get to 60 in 2.8s but the Veyron has a faster 0-100-0 by a large amount (9.9 vs 11 seconds). The upgraded Fxx is estimated to go to 230mph, well short of this Veyron.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  156. Why should I care? Why must I have an opinion? by WheelDweller · · Score: 0

    Ya know, back in the days when Capitalism was making us the envy of the world, what something cost wasn't generally important: just none of my business.

    Sure, the '80's, when Regan came in and rescued us from the MISERABLE conditions of overtaxing and over-control via Jimmy Carter, being able to have a job became a bigger deal....having a house and a car were similarly more to cheer about, too.

    But those guys at AIG? Federal guidelines had them getting paid only once a year. A YEAR! Imagine living on nothing until Christmas. Then they cut a deal with the president, and the president's men shoved on-lookers and like a lynch mob, they took THAT away, as well.

    When we go socialist- we're *ALL* going to be poor, not all going to be rich. The only rich are the people in the politbureau; those in power. It will be them that buy this car.

    And then it will be no one's business to know how much it costs; no one will advertise to the American public, whose electricity costs skyrocketed because Obama doesn't like coal.

    Yeah, it's parly rant, but it's truth; and that's exactly why I expect to get modded down again.

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
    1. Re:Why should I care? Why must I have an opinion? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's parly rant, but it's truth; and that's exactly why I expect to get modded down again.

      Mod points should be reserved for those who make sense in some direction which can be agreed with or disagreed with. You're ranting, however, would make Rush Limbaugh clear his throat awkwardly and say, "Sure, yeah man. Right on!" while mentally ticking you off the invite list for being a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

      Mod points are for the sane.

      -FL

    2. Re:Why should I care? Why must I have an opinion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I have been on Slashdot for a while, and its rare where you encounter a post that isn't a Goatse troll that not only has not even a single shred of truth in it, but the poster is unable to spell critical names.

      Reagan did nothing new. He removed regulations for cronies in the bank industry and allowed financial institutions to do things which were not legal before. Of course, allowing banks to do creative accounting will let banks net more money in the short term. However, after this, the Federal government had to bailout all the thrifts in the big S&L scandal of the 1980s.

      Similar with Bush. Yes, it made the economy zoom for a bit, but it didn't last long before the US government had to clean up the mess after the party. This time around, due to "free trade" agreements which have bled the US dry, the US doesn't have the resources it did in Reagan's time to clean up the mess. Instead, the Fed is resorting to the printing press. Right now, it works, and has stopped the bleeding, but it would not take much for the US dollar to hyperinflate and become worthless.

      Oh, shut up about the socialist thing. It has nothing to do with banking. The only country that is not socialist in some way is Somalia where you don't have to pay any taxes to the government for anything... just make sure you have more AKs and RPGs than the next guy, or hand all your stuff to the guy pointing the M-16 in your direction.

      Obama isn't going to turn the US into a Communist style USSR. I say go back to your tea party and get more recent propaganda than the stuff you are spouting. Its way old, and last year's BS. It also doesn't hurt to hit the gun shop on the way there and pick up some 50 cal ammo. You never know if the aliens are coming either.

      Your friends in AIG are doing nothing except just moving money from the US offshore. They are parasites, pure and simple, and bring absolutely nothing of value to anyone except themselves.

  157. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by rs79 · · Score: 1

    Th newestt fastest Mercedes makes enough of a dent in the Bugatti's speed that the price difference between the two is a joke.

    The bugatti isn't a car, it's art. As such it's irreplaceable and unique.

    But the Benz is actually a better car. Damn near as fast, doesn't have 12 radiators and... you can get parts for it.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
  158. Re:If I ever see.. by Dishevel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    There is only one reason to key a car. It's to teach those "I need to take up multiple parking spaces so no one scratches my car fuckers." a lesson. Every time I see a nice car parked taking up multiple spaces in a crowded parking lot....S C R A A A A A T T T C C C H H H H H ! ! ! ! !

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  159. Terrific savings! by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

    Since I don't own a car, the Bugatti Veyron is the car I've chosen not to own.

    This new model is great news for me, as now I'm saving over $2 million by not owning it, as opposed to the mere $1.5 million savings I used to get.

  160. Re:If I ever see.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    J.K.Rowling could probably afford one. Does that change yor mind?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  161. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're going to make up stories to impress people, try to make them at least somewhat believable.

  162. That is admittedly a very sexy looking car... by Troy+Baer · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...but for $2.1M, it had better be the frickin' Batmobile. Complete with Batman as the chauffeur.

    --
    "My life's work has been to prompt others... and be forgotten." --Cyrano de Bergerac
  163. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by sdbillin · · Score: 1

    Then again they have different target markets. The guy on the bike got to demonstrate his incredible ballsiness, whereas the guy in the Porsche put some tunes on the stereo, flipped on the aircon and went to pick up his boyfriend. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

    Fixed that for you.

  164. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only have one testicle, you insensitive clod!

  165. Re:If I ever see.. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    If you parked it on the street without an armed guard, you'd deserve it.

    Maybe in America. Here in Switzerland, it's not at all unusual to see expensive Ferraris Porches, Audis, Lamborghinis, and the like parked out on the street overnight. And they get a hell of a lot more driving than just to the track a few times a year.

  166. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by 2obvious4u · · Score: 3, Informative

    You may not be able to outrun radio waves, but you can outrun the response to radio waves.

    I was pulled over racing against an imported http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_911_GT3 that the driver claimed he had personally done 190 MPH in. This was on I-75 near Tampa. Police Interceptors only go 140 MPH. Not only that they would have to accelerate up to speed to catch you. At 190 MPH you are going faster than 3 miles a min which also means you're going faster than 1 mile every 20 seconds. Exits on I-75 are about every 3 miles. So the officer would have to radio a head, then the responding officer would have to get in position. Also the officers aren't going to pit you at that speed nor try anything else to stop you since it would be to dangerous. At that speed they'll pretty much leave you alone, they may try and get your plates but other than that there isn't much they can do.

    In Atlanta they operate Bell 206B Jet Ranger's for their helicopters, they only have a Top Speed of 220 MPH so the Bugatti would even be able to outrun the aerial pursuit.

  167. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by $pace6host · · Score: 1

    Save your energy. Most Slashdot posters are not "car" people and simply don't get it. No amount of argument will penetrate their opinions.

    Perhaps you need to come up with a completely nonsensical car analogy to explain it to us? Seems to work for every other topic...

  168. A not-so-modest proposal by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    The poor will whine, won't they?

    Should probably sterilize anyone who demonstrates they probably have no prospects at success when they hit puberty. Just lop the gonads right off. That'll fix the problem for sure, and give the lazy bitches something to really whine about as well.

  169. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by fractoid · · Score: 1

    If we're talking price per performance, get yourself an R32 Skyline or JZA80 Supra and spend $20k on the engine. All up cost: ~35k. All up performance: It wouldn't keep up with the Veyron but it'd probably make the 'newest fastest' merc sweat a little, and all for a price that compares very favourably with a mid-level new car.

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  170. Re:If I ever see.. by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

    Probably? She could afford a couple of hundred. Forbes listed her as a billionaire last year.

  171. Re:If I ever see.. by afabbro · · Score: 1

    go buy a Ferrari 308 you can get a good one for under $30K rip out the crappy Fararri engine and drivetrain and install a Pontiac 3.4 and you now have a reliable car that is cheap to work on and actually has some power unlike the raging crap that is the Ferrari Engine in the 308.

    But then you'd be driving a GM car, and who the hell wants that?

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  172. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. While not in the same category, I was reading something about the Audi R8, where the engine and transmission were borrowed from other higher end cars. The R8 is around $125,000 starting. It has an engine from Lamborghini which I think VW bought out.

    For all the new bigotry on /. (anti-rich, anti-money, anti-splurge), /.ers should know that's the way all tech is. They look at the Tesla roadster and think it's okay because it's research funding by the purchase price of the wealthy (essentially, an investment "grant"). But this, it's a no no because of the price. A lot of the tech may be insane, but some of it will trickle down or be influential. If a bunch of rich people pay for high end R&D and get a product out of it, that's should be fine.

    Cars like this are often influential too, getting kids interested in why the car costs so much, what the tech is, etc. Even making people angry gets an influence, because maybe someone here will be inspired to build something better, more safe, and more efficient.

    For example, a lot of people know about carbon fiber these days because of it's use in high end cars, i.e. McLaren and Ferrari. Not their military application or softball bats. Just reading this thread re the horsepower to kilowatt comparisons was interesting and influential to me. In kind, your economic analysis was interesting, and maybe an eye-opener to people who didn't immediately consider it (like me), as well as pointing out to people the real cost of business, R&D, taxes, and paying salaries of the tech people behind this.

    Even straight up marketing is interesting. VW has made claim to the fact that they want to overtake Toyota, and has been pushing hard in the tech arena. Having a massive ridiculous flagship that can have tech spin off down the line to their Porsche and Audi class vehicles, as well as having a flagship associated with them similar to the Corvette for GM or the Viper was for Dodge is simply smart.

    There's another /. story pointing out $35 billion going to a moon mission. Interesting the lack of griping about the rich government funding that, when the government as an entity took most of that money from the rich. Money is property, most people in this world got money from their parents and many still live in the same area they grew up in, getting aid from relatives, but a millionaire leaving a few for their kids is suddenly wrong because of the "massive" amount of it. I'd rather have $2.1 million being blown on a car, than the few grand blown on weed or smack.

    But hey, group hate is back and thriving these days, a good thing, just as long as it isn't racism, eh.

  173. Re:1000+HP for how long? A few seconds? by sleigher · · Score: 1

    That car is a 1000 HP + GN that does 8 sec 1/4 miles consistently. I would agree that a standard Buick regal is not the car I would want to do that in. That car is an exception. Buick GN's and the GNX are known to be easy to modify and can produce a rock solid drag racer. However, when one does modify ANY car for performance, all aspects need be taken into consideration. Not just the motor/exhaust. I know he did extensive mods to the drive train, suspension, and everything else that was needed to produce that car. I used to go to the same Buick group that he did. He and his car are somewhat famous in the Buick racing scene. The main difference between a GN and this Veyron is you wouldn't want to turn in the GN. Many American cars were never much for turning.

    I wasn't necessarily comparing the GN to that Veyron, I was saying you can have 1000 HP for far less than $2.1 million. Also, the GN was rated 245 HP stock on the sticker, but anyone who has one knows they were roughly 300 HP stock and with minor mods could be in the 11 sec 1/4 mile range. Anything beyond that took more tuning and mods.

    In that video, he went over 1000 HP on the dyno and the tires started smoking. The dyno couldn't keep up with the power output. As for the tranny and drive train? He drove it out of there and it was fine. Certainly none of it was stock. You can do a lot with a t-350 and t-400 tranny.

    --
    All points of time and space are connected.
  174. Subliminal Phallus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one to notice this? Could it be intentional?

    http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/6672/lolpenis.jpg

  175. That's correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think there's supposed to be a space between "80" and "km/h".

    Of course, I'm posting as "Anonymous Cowardon" (like you) so I guess I shouldn't complain.

  176. Neat engineerin feat, testosterone writen by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    That article was like reading a page from a le Carre spy novel. I feel mildly thrilled and disgusted at the same time.

    Why is it when the best of the best get together to make a neat machine, it has to be suffused with a bunch of creepy moneyed assholes? A prerequisite for purchasing this car will be that you are an illegal arms merchant, drug dealer or a CEO for some Enron-style business model. Honestly, corrupt bastards will make up MORE than half the clientele for a toy like this. That's just how the system works. What do they say? "You can ask me how I made my first hundred million; I'd be happy to spell it all out for the Vanity Fair reporter. But how I made my first ten million? No. Do not ask me that."

    Ah well. Even the author of this article was feeling nervous around the edges. In the same way that "World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones", he was quite clear that this might well be the last king of the gas guzzlers. The very same fuckers who drive these things will be the ones most intimately responsible for despoiling the human race to the point where nobody can drive anything on the planet's surface again.

    Queasy.

    -FL

  177. Re:Deserve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flaunt is one thing, but judging by the "Flamebait" mod above, and your repeated "Insightful" mods it would appear the slashdot group-think supports instant disdain for anyone with money.

    Does having nice things deserve our ire?

    Granted, if the car had a license place "POORPPLSUK" or something similar then yes, by all means have fun with the dagger.
    But it seems everyone is condemning the mere ownership of such a car so much so that vandalizing it is seen as not only acceptable, but encouraged.

  178. There is larger conspicuous consumption every day by rbrander · · Score: 1

    Maybe I missed something surfing /. at 4, but everybody is arguing about the waste, the excess, the carbon, whatever - because its a CAR. There are thousands of private jets out there and few cost as *little* as $2.1M or use as little fuel.

    Somebody buying one of these instead of a $5M on a new Gulfstream II they could also afford, is arguably being abstemious - and much more considerate of the environment.

    And lets not get started on homes (on private islands or not); or even mention paying $37M for a painting.

    Bottom line: it's not how excessive a purchase seems given what you are getting - it's just absolutely how much you are spending that makes it "consumption".

    $2.1M would be very, very cheap for an M-1 tank - but getting an M-1 to pop down to the A&P in would still count as pretty conspicuous consumption.

    This is great news for the /. crowd, most of whom have computers overpowered for their actual needs by a much, much larger margin than the 245 MPG Bugatti is overpowered for a trip to the A&P. Fortunately for them, their absolute expenditure was minor, so they aren't a bunch of contemptible jerks showing off and compensating for penis size.

    Well, they might be, of course, but not for THAT reason.

  179. Re:If I ever see.. by Bertie · · Score: 1

    Bugatti's part of the VW group, along with about half the other car manufacturers in Europe (Seat, Skoda, Bentley, Audi, Lamborghini, and pretty soon Porsche). The whole project came about when VW's head honcho declared they'd build a car with 1000BHP that could do 400km/h. It was the first the engineers had heard of it, and for a long time it looked like they wouldn't manage it, even though they'd basically been given a blank cheque. Eventually they cracked it.

    Although if you're not aware that Bugatti's part of the VW group, it's obviously not doing the job it was intended to do...

  180. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by hesiod · · Score: 1

    I only have one testicle, you insensitive clod!

    So what's it like to drive your Veyron?

  181. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by hesiod · · Score: 1

    At under 10mpg (2mpg at full throttle), the Veyron has no place in an argument about practicality.

  182. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by hesiod · · Score: 1

    He meant the motorcycle couldn't make the turn.

  183. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My bullshit sense is tingling.

  184. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

    Well Im sure his goes faster than the other ones. His Veyron is an ounce lighter.

    --
    Balderdash!
  185. Re:If I ever see.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Fine, slap in a different engine. Whatever you can get for cheap and is reliable and fast.

    The GM 3800sc engine is damn near bulletproof.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  186. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

    seriously. Something as heavy as a street car needs liek 6000+ hp. Top fuel drag cars have that but weigh like 2000lbs.(which in my book is heavy! but I think they need that much weight to keep the car on the ground) Also normal race tires have too much friction to make it easy to reach 300. Gearing is another issue but thats not difficult to take care of. Aerodynamics are important there too. A car that can hit "300-400" has to have some serious aero worked out to allow it to even hit those speeds AND keep the car on the ground. Also a normal (even beefed up) driveline is gonna have a hard time putting down 6000+ hp to the ground. The best I've ever heard of was a guy out where I live that was able to hit 200mph on the street. This takes an insane amount of skill to drive 200mph on city surface streets with traffic for 5 minutes and make it alive!

    --
    Balderdash!
  187. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

    Yeah... Last I checked, turboprop airplanes are definitely NOT road legal... Unless you fly very, very low.

  188. I assume Jay Leno has one on order. by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    He has a few other other useless cars an motorcycles.

  189. Re:If I ever see.. by hesiod · · Score: 2, Informative

    Until the Veyron, they pretty much just made concept cars.

  190. Re:If I ever see.. by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

    FYI: TopGear reported that they plan to end production when they build 300 of them ;) So there.

  191. Re:If I ever see.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

    I've never seen a business's livelihood blocking the sidewalk, but if I did I probably would key it.

    I guess they don't have sidewalk advertisement signs where you live.

  192. Re:Deserve? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking from a "flaunt your wealth in the face the starving and you'll get a dagger" class warfare perspective of course.

    You may not like it, but there is historical evidence supporting that very same perspective. I'm not implying the release of this car will spark any sort of social upheaval, but flaunting this level of wealth in "the wrong sections of town" is asking for trouble.

  193. Can I get a fake identity with that? by BurzumNazgul · · Score: 1

    If you can afford this (totallysexyomgamazing) car you should consider investing in a second identity for speeding tickets. That way you can keep your insurance to about the average Joe's mortgage payment.

    --
    I can say [REDACTED] anytime I want!
    1. Re:Can I get a fake identity with that? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      To give you a speeding ticket, they have to CATCH YOU.

      If you're in this car, they can't.

  194. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

    It gets confusing when people talk about motorcycles in a car discussion.

  195. Re:If I ever see.. by Chabo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Personally, I'd rather Kim Jong-Il and the middle eastern royalty that you hate so much spend their money on cars made by Europeans than what they usually spend it on.

    --
    Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  196. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh,hey may get to 140, but not this week. They are heavy. Never race a cop car in speed, you won't be able to hide fast enough. The trick is to be nimble, Accel quickly, turn often, and kiss them goodbye. Not that I'd know anything about out running cops....

    P.S. I'm posting anonamously though I'm logged cause I'm not supposed to be telling you this.

  197. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Aphoxema · · Score: 1

    Save your energy. Most Slashdot posters are not "car" people and simply don't get it. No amount of argument will penetrate their opinions.

    Yeah, I'm 25, don't have a license and the most I know about cars is how the engine works and the dynamics involved in physical movement. As far as drooling over prismatic paint jobs or masturbating to numerical ratings of performance I just really don't get it.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  198. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    that's where I'm confused, cause I've been on a busa taking a hairy turn in Yelm, WA at 110+ (I quit looking when the front edged up a bit while deep in the lean...) a motorcycle can corner pretty dang well.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  199. Re:If I ever see.. by Burning1 · · Score: 1

    That sounds kind of like dating a Taiwanese Lady Man. Sure, it may be incredibly hot on the outside, but at the back of your mind you'll always know that the wrong equipment is waiting under the hood.

  200. MUX wired and ready by Maniacal · · Score: 1

    There's a bunch of photos in TFA. One is a close-up of the dashboard. It took me a few looks to realize it said "AUX 1 WIRED" and not "MUX 1 WIRED". For a minute there I had a strange mix of confusion and excitement.

    --
    MG
  201. Re:If I ever see.. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    They do, actually. I'm tempted to kick them over, but I know the cops round here would side with the shop ownwers, even though obstructing the footpath is an offence and technically I'd be in the right. I just blow a big greenie on them instead.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  202. Re:If I ever see.. by hesiod · · Score: 1

    I can agree with that sentiment.

  203. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In that case, by your childish have-not logic, you deserve to be butt-hole dry-fucked by a night prowler, then have your notebook stolen.

    What's the about butt-hole dry-fucking? Fantasy of yours? Watching The Notebook, then getting butt-raped by a stranger. That's a little...off, but okay.

  204. Re:If I ever see.. by afidel · · Score: 1

    And the way they cornered the market on the options and squeezed the short sellers was the most beautiful bit of financial artistry I have ever seen.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  205. No cup holders? by nsaspook · · Score: 1

    I just throw my empty Hamms cans out the window anyway.

    --
    In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
  206. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You furries are a weird bunch.

  207. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No they're not. Check your facts.

    The Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey are not part of Great Britain, they are not part of the United Kingdom and neither are they part of the European Union. They are self-governing British Crown dependencies.

  208. Re:There is larger conspicuous consumption every d by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    A modern private jet is FAR more efficient than this thing when it comes to passenger miles per gallon.

  209. Koenigsegg CCX doesn't fall far behind by OutputLogic · · Score: 1

    Koenigsegg CCX doesn't fall far behind Bugatti Veyron:
    - price: $2,100,000
    - 1018 hp
    - top speed of 257 mph

    And on top of it: it's buying Saab. Koenigsegg has only 45 full time staff empolyees and sold 18 cars last year,which is 97,982 less than SAAB did.

    OutputLogic

  210. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd rather just boot the car then. I remember a time when some guy almost ran me down while I was crossing the street. He ended up with a huge creased dent in his brand new car for it. I only wish he hadn't driven off in fear, because I would have liked to beat the shit out of him.

  211. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    '70's-era Chevy Malibu, 6-pack, aluminium everything, less than 300 produced with that engine (just enough to qualify as a production vehicle). What happened was that he was getting married, and had saved up enough to buy a house for cash, but hadn't told his fiancee. They always went on dates by taxi or bus or walked, and he kept up the pretense that he was a poor mensch, still living at home with his parents,

    So she tells him that, while she loves him, her mother thinks she can do better. He says "no problem, just both of you be outside in an hour, I just want to say goodbye to both of you."

    He goes home, takes his caddy out of his parents' garage, drives by (with the roof down), and says "F*** you both!" So he has this wad of money sitting in his pocket, and he decided to do something grazy - buy a race car. He bought it, had it de-rated so it would only produce 550 - 650 hp, and he would take it out once or twice a year.

    A tune-up every 350 miles, and a complete tear-down every 1,500.00. He was an engineer living at home with his parents, it's not like he had anything else to spend it on.

    A decade or so later he got married, and sold the car. It had a bit more than 10,000 miles on it.

  212. Re:Yeah but.... 1/4 the price alternative by treeves · · Score: 1

    Next from Bugatti....Veyron Stealth Edition! Ugly but fast.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  213. Re:There is larger conspicuous consumption every d by rbrander · · Score: 1

    I don't think the article was really about carbon, it was about the raw expense. That was the topic I was on about, anyway. And for sheer operating cost, by time you've finished paying the pilots and mechanics and the airport fees, I think you're a ways in the hole.

  214. Missing important accessory by Cuban+Devil · · Score: 2, Funny

    OK, car is nice, but it still misses the flux capacitor. De Lorean had it decades ago.

  215. no need to pursuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Vehicle is a Bugatti Veyron..." "Check registration records..." "Only one registered in 200 miles range..." "K boys, let's meet him home..." Sorry to burst your bubble but if you actually had a million-dollar 200mph car, the last thing you think of is running away from police.

    1. Re:no need to pursuit... by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      lol, 200 mile range. The Porsche I raced had driven down from Michigan that morning. Try a 1600 mile range. 8 hours by 200 MPH. You also assume the officer will even recognize the make and model.

  216. thank you for rehashing exactly what I said by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding? Bugatti has been around forever.

    Yes, but before the Veyron, your average Joe had never heard of them.

    the Veyron is it's "gimmick" (for the car illiterate, this is an understatement) to show the world how bloody good they are.

    Hey asshat (who got modded up, time to start metamoderating again), what the fuck do you think this means?

    The whole point of a halo car is to demonstrate engineering prowess and/or get PR for the company.

    Oh look. You said EXACTLY THE SAME THING I DID.

  217. AWD is faster off the line by wotevah · · Score: 1

    most all wheel drive cars are slower off the line than their two wheel drive counterparts.

    That's plain wrong. All else being equal, AWD is always faster off the line because you are usually traction limited at launch, and AWD allows you to hook up all your tires when you dump the clutch. They are slower afterwards because of the extra weight and drivetrain losses, but no doubt they can take off like a bat outta hell from a full stop.

  218. THE Veyron by TheRedheadRiter · · Score: 1

    I just wanted to say as a woman that I can't afford that car, I don't know how all the parts work, but it is by far THE HOTTEST CAR ON THE PLANET and I don't are about all the rest of the stuff. It is sleek, sexy, fast, and oozes "rich" all over the place. The lines are so smooooooth and I just love, love, love, love the Veyron. I have it as my screensaver at work and I update it every time they update the car. It is yummy!

  219. Re:If I ever see.. by bronney · · Score: 1

    Dude you seriously need to come to hong kong and take a look. We've got all sorts of crazy ass expensive cars parked on the curb. Flickr it.

  220. Re:If I ever see.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cars like this aren't made forever.

    From the start, Bugatti said they were making 300 cars, and only 300 cars. The collectors that bought them knowing that number would not change will make sure of it.

    Sure, they'll stretch the number with the editions, like this one (but they're only making 50 I think), but it's not quite as much as you're thinking. If it is a profit making car, it will likely be just barely. It was done as an engineering feat.

  221. Re:There is larger conspicuous consumption every d by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I was responding to: "There are thousands of private jets out there and few cost as *little* as $2.1M or use as little fuel."

    You'd use far more fuel to transport 12 people from New York to California using the Bugatti than you would in a Gulfstream V.

    It's hard to do a fair comparison, though, because there is no such thing as a 2-seat jet. Most of them are at least 6-passenger (HondaJet, Eclipse, PiperJet, etc...)