Ferrari's New Car Tech Idea: Make Car Go Really Fast

Please proofread by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

The word chassis has a double-S in the middle.

Re:Please proofread by FatdogHaiku · 2013-09-11 16:01 · Score: 5, Funny

The word chassis has a double-S in the middle.
At +200mph it gets Dopplered down from a double to a single "s"... On the upside, as it passes you the double "s" comes back... but then when it's going away it has three in a row... chasssis.

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re:Please proofread by Joce640k · 2013-09-11 19:11 · Score: 1

Also: 'Side Slip angle Control' and 'top speed' aren't related.
(Except in the USA, where there's no corners on racetracks).

--
No sig today...
Re:Please proofread by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 03:53 · Score: 0

Indy car racing and Rally have words for you.
Not all american racing is NASCAR and the drag strip.

202 mph by zAPPzAPP · 2013-09-11 09:40 · Score: 1

That's about 90.3 m/s!

Re:202 mph by MurukeshM · 2013-09-11 10:05 · Score: 3, Funny

That's about 325 kmph. The Bugatti Veyron has a top speed of over 406 kmph. What's so special about this Ferrari?
Re:202 mph by Tx · 2013-09-11 10:10 · Score: 1

The Veyron costs like 5 times as much.

--
Oh no... it's the future.
Re:202 mph by ackthpt · 2013-09-11 10:15 · Score: 2

The Veyron costs like 5 times as much.
Also contains massive quantities of unobtainium.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:202 mph by You're+All+Wrong · 2013-09-11 10:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Then buy a ZR1 that costs 1/20th of a Veyron, and can still go faster than this Ferrari.

--
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Re:202 mph by dicobalt · 2013-09-11 10:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

But does the ZR1 handle as well on a track in the twisties? Of course, I'm going on the assumption that people get cars like this to race them. Where racing is defined by doing something more complicated than going in a straight line.
Re:202 mph by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-09-11 10:42 · Score: 4, Informative

When Jeremy Clarkson reviews the ZR1 on Top Gear, he acknowledges that it can go toe to toe with the 458 Italia on the track despite being a fraction of the price. But he points out that the ZR1 is absolutely horrible to drive on the street.
Re:202 mph by AlexOsadzinski · 2013-09-11 10:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Corvette and the 458 are both terrific cars, but in very different ways.
I don't have a ZR1, but I have the 427, which is reasonably close to the ZR1 in many ways. While Chevrolet probably makes very little money on the Corvette, they still have to cut a lot of corners, and it is NOT an exotic. The performance is amazing in a straight line, and not bad on the twisties. The interior is, um, not impressive, although it's improved on the new C7 versions. You're sitting in a plastic car that's fantastic value for money and a lot of fun.
The 458 (Italia version, as I can't speak for the Speciale or Spider) is a luxury exotic. It's an "event" to drive it, and the dynamics, sound and overall experience strictly dominate the Corvette. But the Corvette (the 427 at least) is only $80k, and a moderately specced Italia is over $300k: every one is highly customized for the buyer by the factory, and every option is, um, fully priced, e.g. $32k for special paint, $n,000 for every bit of carbon, etc. For getting from one place to another, the Ferrari isn't worth 4 times the Corvette's price. For sheer fun and excitement, "worth" is in the mind of the buyer.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:07 · Score: 0

There is a lot of pretense in the Corvette. Too much for my taste. It pretends to be sports car.
The Veyron, at 2.5 million out the door and with tires that can only be replaced in Germany is too much hassle. And it looks like an unholy offspring of a Buick and a banana slug. The Lamborghini Aventador is a better choice all 'round, imo. ~350k list but realistically ~500k gets you a car with styling that will cause entire crowds on sidewalks to stop whatever they're doing and stare and is guaranteed to make your passenger freak right out. Maybe yourself, too, if you've never pushed a car over 200 mph.
Re:202 mph by vlad30 · 2013-09-11 11:32 · Score: 1

One has a much better chance of getting you laid thats why its worth 5 times the price to some men

--
Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
Re:202 mph by rssrss · 2013-09-11 11:34 · Score: 1

The Bug goes very fast in a straight line, but Ferrari goes much faster around curves, which is what wins sports car races.
Ferrari has adapted this technology from their Formula 1 racing cars which have been very successful over the years. What Ferrari is trying to do is compete with Porsche and Audi which have dominated sports car racing over the last few years. Bugatti is produced by a subsidiary of VW-Audi which also owns Audi and Porsche.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Re:202 mph by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2013-09-11 11:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

It isn't the straight line top speed that matters. You could always get 200+ mph out of big block American V8s. It's speed and stability around corners that matters. This Ferrari seewms just the ticket for that off-camber, diminishing radius turn with a pothole at the apex.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:38 · Score: 1

What's special about Ferrari?
The same thing as picaso and that luis vuiton shit.
Brand name. The only reason to buy a ferari is so you can show off to your friends how much money you are throwing around.
Re:202 mph by doctor+woot · 2013-09-11 11:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

I really pity whoever needs to fork out 2 million for a chance at getting laid.
Re:202 mph by Flere+Imsaho · 2013-09-11 11:48 · Score: 4, Informative

Try turning in a Veyron at 406 kph and see what happens. You have to switch the car (when parked - you need the ignition key) into a special mode to get to it's top speed, and that mode includes lowering the spoiler to reduce downforce.

--
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:59 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm going on the assumption that people get cars like this to race them.
Umm...no. People get cars like this to overtly display their abundance of wealth to members of the opposite sex while still allowing them to pretend that they're interested in something beyond that wealth. That they go fast is just a happy coincidence.
Re:202 mph by turbidostato · 2013-09-11 12:41 · Score: 1

Well, I'd surely welcome your pity if it really came with the 2 millions.
Re:202 mph by Runaway1956 · 2013-09-11 13:58 · Score: 1

As I recall - the Talladega could give you 200+ in the late sixties. Washington and Nascar started work on forcing LESS powerful engines to be used, bringing "record speeds" at the race tracks DOWN. I'm less of a Mopar fan than I am a Ford fan - but Dodge was producing cars that went head to head with the Talladega, and sometimes won.
Funny thing is - if you're capable of balancing atop three or more high speed gyros, there are a number of inexpensive motorcycles that will outrun any of the cars being sold as "sport" cars. Ten thousand is a good starting point for bikes that can flirt with 200 mph, and if you're more than half serious, you can start modifying that bike as soon as you get it home.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Hayabusa
I certainly can't afford any of these exotic cars, but I'm no stranger to high speed.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:26 · Score: 3, Informative

The short answer: Yes.
The long answer: The C6 Z06 has a faster lap time around the Nürburgring than any Ferrari.
Re:202 mph by doctor+woot · 2013-09-11 15:28 · Score: 1

Whoa, man, I'm not giving anybody two mil to ride the hobby horse. You can try raising that money yourself or get content with your hand as a loyal lifetime partner.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:57 · Score: -1

You know what the real problem with the corvette is?
American cars are considered trash in pretty much of the world.
Re:202 mph by You're+All+Wrong · 2013-09-11 17:27 · Score: 2

Any *street legal* Ferrari, definitely.

--
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
Re:202 mph by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2013-09-11 17:34 · Score: 1

In the late sixties most small town engine shops could get you 500+ hp out of even a small block 289 Ford or 327 Chevy. I was always partial to the 289's square bore and stroke. After that, 200+ was just a matter of rear end ratios. Friend had a 327 built up in an old Studebaker Commander and would race anyone for pinks starting side by side at 100 mph. Thing actually handled pretty well due to some suspension work and thank god for the Airheart disc brakes on the thing. Still pretty scary.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:47 · Score: 0

It is important to remember that in the 60s the engine HP measurement was different, and so 500HP in the 60s is more like 400 HP in a modern car. Plus, the cars didn't have emissions controls and used leaded gasoline. And the engine probably weighed almost as much as the entire Ferrari. Add on the fact that they had horrible handling and if you crashed, you died --- I'd rather have the Ferrari.
Re:202 mph by Undead+Waffle · 2013-09-11 19:32 · Score: 2

He also called the ZR1 car of the year when it came out and from what I remember he did buy one. They just like to bash American cars on the show. It's a comedy show first and a car show second. The ZR1 has the magnetic suspension so it can be adjusted between stiffer and softer. I can't say personally how much it actually changes though. I have a base model with the Z51 option (stiffer suspension) that I daily drive and it's fine. If you drive on bumpy roads it can be rough, but it's a sports car and that's the trade-off for better handling on a smooth road. It's a Corvette so you can always mod it. And the visibility in a Corvette is the best I've ever seen because of the giant rear window. The squeaks and rattles are real though...
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 19:40 · Score: 0

Well, technically 5 times zero is still zero. I don't know where these mythical women who actually care about fast cars live. Unless you're interested in ... oh, right. Carry on, then.
Re:202 mph by MMC+Monster · 2013-09-11 22:21 · Score: 2

No. People with this sort of money realize that just having the money is enough to attract more women than they want.
They buy the cars because they want the status symbols among their (predominately male) peers or even just to themselves.

--
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 23:15 · Score: 0

It's handling.
Re:202 mph by flyneye · 2013-09-11 23:19 · Score: 2

I've got a 79 Trans Am with a 403 Olds that can kick the shit out of wimpy 202 mph. Lets race for titles, buddy.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:202 mph by sycodon · 2013-09-12 01:22 · Score: 1

So... the 458...all show and not much more go than a car way less than half the price.
Shelby GT 500 will get you to 202 also for about $70k.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:202 mph by Politburo · 2013-09-12 01:35 · Score: 1

There are certainly people who buy Ferraris to race them. http://www.ferrarichallenge.com/
Re:202 mph by Runaway1956 · 2013-09-12 02:59 · Score: 1

I'm partial to the 283 or the 327, myself. I had a car that most guys wouldn't even look at. An old, ugly, station wagon. Well, to be honest, it wasn't THAT ugly. It shined up nicely, but it was a STATION WAGON!! 327 with a 3-speed slip-slide, and highway gears. There was nothing special about it, no custom engine work or anything - it was just a strong engine. When I went to town, I'd play games with the motorheads at the traffic lights - they'd burn half their rubber off their cars, but the old wagon would just grab asphalt and get down the road.
I never learned how fast that car would go, but the speedo went to 140, and I broke it out repeatedly, until I got tired of buying cables.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:202 mph by tompaulco · 2013-09-12 03:00 · Score: 1

But does the ZR1 handle as well on a track in the twisties?

I'd wager the ZR-1 handles better than the Veyron. The Veyron just has a huge fat engine that makes it go fast in a straight line and can compensate for the fact that it is a ridiculously heavy car. Over two tons. About the same as a mid-size SUV.
Don't get me wrong, if someone gave me a Veyron, I'd take it. I'd drive it a bit, then sell it and buy like 5 other cars that I find more interesting and in the ballpark of the same performance.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 03:27 · Score: 0

No, your T/A cannot do 202+mph. I'll be generous and say it topped out ~135mph when new. Feel free to provide details on the rear end ratio, transmission, engine mods, etc. to support the claimed top end. A time slip from Bonneville would be better still.
Re:202 mph by triffid_98 · 2013-09-12 04:00 · Score: 1

If it didn't squeak, rattle or (for modern versions, have a cabin full of cheesy plastic) it wouldn't be a Corvette.

They're a fantastic value if you want to go very very fast and still turn left AND right. If you're just trying to impress the other billionaires at the country club, it's probably not what you want though.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:22 · Score: 0

Or about 543 kilofurlongs per fortnight.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 04:30 · Score: 0

No, unless youre talking about rich college kids. People with this sort of money buy these, garage them, then sell them later often for a large profit. Cars like this are investments.
Re:202 mph by Ralph+Wiggam · 2013-09-12 07:30 · Score: 1

The new C7s apparently get rid of the sqeaks, rattles, and the plastic.
Re:202 mph by triffid_98 · 2013-09-12 08:14 · Score: 1

Well that's too bad. Squeaks, rattles and awful plastic are what kept that car cheap, particularly on the used market.

...and also damn GM for re-using the LT1 engine designation yet again. (which is commonly known as the designation for their second generation small block, available starting in 1992)
Re:202 mph by slash.jit · 2013-09-12 09:00 · Score: 1

This Ferrari is 597hp, Veyron is almost or greater than a 1000hp. Imagine what can the Ferrari achieve with that much power.
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 09:28 · Score: 0

It's a comedy show first and a car show second.
If by "comedy" you mean "Crass Limbaugh-esque right-wing red meat", then sure! Accurate.
Re:202 mph by flyneye · 2013-09-12 11:49 · Score: 1

403 olds, custom lobed cam.2- 880 carbs, Super HEI distributor and a fuel pump that'd put a gas station to shame. When you show up with your mamas car, don't forget to bring the title, chump. You don't have a clue.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:202 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-21 05:05 · Score: 0

There's a reason the SI abbreviation is kph. You just said 325 kilomiles per hour and 406 kilomiles per hour. Alternately, if you'd like to move the k, you might have almost said 325k mph or 406k mph.
Use kph. Don't be a retard.

Ferrari by SpaceManFlip · 2013-09-11 09:41 · Score: 1

New Idea: Make car go faster

Innovation is Repetition: The mantra of the film and TV industry

Ferrari is still awesome though. Give me one now.

Re:Ferrari by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:53 · Score: 0

New Idea: Make car go faster

I already patented that... I'll see them in court.
Re:Ferrari by loufoque · 2013-09-11 10:42 · Score: 0

A Ferrari is useless.
Most people who buy ones usually sell them not too long after.
Re:Ferrari by AK+Marc · 2013-09-11 10:48 · Score: 2

This car isn't their fastest, and they aren't the fastest maker. This is about extending stability control to speeds well above legal. 99.9% of the cars won't see it ever used, but they are bought for their "capabilities" not performance, so it's a valuable feature for the billionaire that wants the exclusivity to drive 35 mph on city streets.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Ferrari by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 21:48 · Score: 0

I was a bit bothered since the 99.9% figure seemed grabbed from your ass so I decided to check wikipedia.
There are about 130,000 built and sold Ferrari.
Since 1940 Ferrari have used 145 different models in racing.
We can therefore conclude that at least 0.11% of all Ferrari are used in racing.
I would say that my suspicion was unfounded. 99.9% appears to be a correctly rounded value. Perhaps add sources next time?
Re:Ferrari by AK+Marc · 2013-09-12 06:15 · Score: 1

You want a cite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

How's that?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Ferrari by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 06:40 · Score: 0

if you buy a street legal Ferrari, you are an idiot.
Words straight from old man Enzo himself. It's all there to fund the racing division. All the man cared about was speed. They developed this tech for Formula 1, and figured out how to put it in a street car to keep the shareholders happy.
also, it is just abusive if you own a Ferrari and never take it to the track. that is like owning a price racehorse, and then refuse to let it get past a trot
Re:Ferrari by SpaceManFlip · 2013-09-12 07:28 · Score: 1

Who cares about what speeds are legal? If you're in a Ferrari, the speed limit signs are a joke to laugh at as they whiz by in a blur.
Seriously, I really don't give a fuck about the speed limits anyway, and I commute in a 4-cylinder compact. Every single day, I break the law by driving at least 10 mph in excess of the posted limits. And I haven't had a speeding ticket in years, LOL.
Sometimes I go up to 100 mph on the 4-lane, in brief stretches. My car has the tires to handle it, and the suspension geometry to be stable at those speeds. If I had a Ferrari, I probably wouldn't drive it often, and when I did I would make the speed limit signs spin around like the Road Runner on those cartoons.

And that's why by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:41 · Score: 1

That's why I bought a Saturn.

Re:And that's why by ackthpt · 2013-09-11 10:16 · Score: 1

That's why I bought a Saturn.
Yeah, they're real gone. Literally!

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:And that's why by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:49 · Score: 0

98% of Saturn cars aren't much to look at, but the Saturn Sky in Red Line trim could be said to be a modern collectable.
Not the fastest car, and more comparable to a Lotus than Ferrari, but looks nice and isn't that common. Perhaps as close to exotic cars as you can get on a lower middle class income and while having everything in good running order.

Nice video by madprof · 2013-09-11 09:42 · Score: 1

Just such a shame they asked people to obey "traffic sings" at the very end. Although they may have been talking about the engine note...

201 mph by swaq · 2013-09-11 09:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ferrari built a car that could do 201 mph in 1987. Glad to see they're improving...

Re:201 mph by DigiShaman · 2013-09-11 09:54 · Score: 1

Safely? Relatively speaking that is.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:59 · Score: 0

I suspect the velocity of a car may be limited by the tire technology. Dragsters (watch those tires occasionally explode) and land speed record cars generally don't need a lot of lateral stability. This car presumably was clocked on an oval, and even with all the traction control and suspension tricks only does 120 faster than my old vw diesel.
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:05 · Score: 0

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:19 · Score: 0

Yup: 0-100 in 3.0 instead of 3.8, lap at Fiorano in 1,23,5 versus 1.29.60. Definitely improving.
Mind you, the F40 back then was the top model, you really should compare it with todays LaFerrari: >350 km/h, 3.0 seconds, 1.20.00.
Re:201 mph by ackthpt · 2013-09-11 10:20 · Score: 4, Funny

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Don't get to California much, do you?
There's a classic/reallyexpensive car get together in Monterey/Pebble Beach every years and some of these ultra spiff cars go out to Laguna Seca and drive around very fast.
One year I was driving to work and the road I was on was quite possibly one of the most expensive traffic jams you could find anywhere in the world. About a half mile of Ferrari, Lamborghini, Jaguar, Bentley, Porsche, Maserati, Mercedes, et al. Among the Italian cars alone I hadn't seen so much red since the last time I looked into my checking account. But I fit right in, in my bright red Dodge pickup (c:

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:43 · Score: 1

That's like saying processors haven't gotten much better since my computer ten years ago had 2.4 GHz.
Re:201 mph by ehiris · 2013-09-11 11:00 · Score: 1

Yeah, but Ferrari doesn't make cars for Nascar circuits. Try flooring it on a very windy road.
I wonder if any street-safe ferrari could make you pass out from the G forces in the future.
Re:201 mph by rssrss · 2013-09-11 11:25 · Score: 1

They are going to be really spectacular on wreckedexotics.com

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:33 · Score: 0

Yeah, the F40. It didn't have computers to save your ass if you got out of shape in high speed cornering. Although even stability control is old hat these days.
"adjusting the traction control and electric differential to enable smooth and predictable powered oversteer and even faster responses to driver input when cornering."
The difference here is that where regular stability control dials back the fun when you're about to spin, this super-duper stability control lets you do no-brainer power drifts. Back in the day, these drivers would've removed themselves from the gene pool, probably in a 911 Turbo.
Re:201 mph by orion205 · 2013-09-11 11:37 · Score: 1

I don't know why the summary gives the impression that all this technology leads to a top speed of 202 mph. Clearly the Side Slip Angle Control and a lot of the other technology mentioned is intended to improve performance while cornering. Improving downforce and handling through the corner doesn't help top speed at all, but it does get you around a twisty track a lot faster.
Re:201 mph by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2013-09-11 11:41 · Score: 3, Informative

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Don't get to California much, do you?
Seriously. I was doing about 85 in my Z3 on 101 in Mendocino County and got passed by a silver-blue Ferrari that had to be well over 120. Scared the shit out of me.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:201 mph by MassiveForces · 2013-09-11 11:46 · Score: 5, Funny

A rare reverse-car analogy folks
Re:201 mph by snero3 · 2013-09-11 11:51 · Score: 1

But, in 1987, could it do this sideways? Also I believe that in 1987 it could only do 201 mph for about 30 seconds before it blow up. ;)

--
It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
Re:201 mph by stymy · 2013-09-11 12:03 · Score: 1

That's a higher top speed than most formula 1 cars, and yet we all know which would win in a race.
Re:201 mph by ackthpt · 2013-09-11 12:05 · Score: 1

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Don't get to California much, do you?
Seriously. I was doing about 85 in my Z3 on 101 in Mendocino County and got passed by a silver-blue Ferrari that had to be well over 120. Scared the shit out of me.
I've heard tales of sports car owners going over 150 on I-5. I have no idea when they do this, because every time I'm on there it would seem impossible. Maybe they do this further north, where the traffic is lighter.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:201 mph by RedHackTea · 2013-09-11 12:17 · Score: 1

And they keep overpricing each year...

--
The G
Re:201 mph by rocket+rancher · 2013-09-11 12:34 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Bullshit. You, sir, have apparently never been to a track day. I may not hit 200mph, but I regularly get my Ducati 1098 (another example of Italian looks-good-goes-fast technology) to a buck eighty-five. There are three pro tracks within a two-hour ride (one is only forty-five minutes away) from my house that have track days nearly every weekend of the year. For a fee ranging from $40 to about $150 per day, I can drag a knee at 120mph and tuck in for a speed run on the straight-away for hours on end. There are plenty of racing venues that cater to well-heeled speed freaks so we can ride fast in a controlled, reasonably safe environment for a trivial amount of scratch. So fuck you, coward -- too bad you will never get to enjoy the thrill of piloting an exquisitely engineered machine at the edge of its performance envelope. That takes money and balls, two (three?) things you obviously lack.
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 12:35 · Score: 0

"et al." = et alibi, used for people and places. "etc." is what you wanted to use. "et al." is not fancy-speak for "etc."
Re:201 mph by rsborg · 2013-09-11 12:41 · Score: 1

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Don't get to California much, do you?
Seriously. I was doing about 85 in my Z3 on 101 in Mendocino County and got passed by a silver-blue Ferrari that had to be well over 120. Scared the shit out of me.
I've heard tales of sports car owners going over 150 on I-5. I have no idea when they do this, because every time I'm on there it would seem impossible. Maybe they do this further north, where the traffic is lighter.
I've done 140 easily in my old 4-banger Integra GSR racing another GSR 15 years ago... This was just north of santa clarita where it just starts to get really flat for hours.

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:201 mph by Shadow99_1 · 2013-09-11 13:07 · Score: 1

I've done 120 mph with my '95 Nissan Sentra when I owned it... And later with a Dodge Dakota pickup... And even a twice with my current '99 LHS. Not a one anything designed for 'racing'... None in Cali either... Late night (2 am ish) on the interstate in most eastern states in the US are pretty bare...

--
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Re:201 mph by khallow · 2013-09-11 13:12 · Score: 1

Yea, Ferrari has been doubling the speed of its cars every two years. Or is that doubling the transistor density? I don't remember... But I'm sure it's all the same.
Re:201 mph by gr8_phk · 2013-09-11 13:36 · Score: 1

That takes money and balls, two (three?) things you obviously lack.
Ouch. Living up to the stereotype I see!
Re:201 mph by Darby · 2013-09-11 14:23 · Score: 1

I did 110 (according to the spedometer..maxed out) in an '87 CRX.
It's I-5, the name of the game on that road is get the fuck through to where you're going.
That's probably the number 1 road around to go all out. Nothing's there and it's flat as fuck.
If I had the time for scenery and curves, I'd be on the 101.
Re:201 mph by cyn1c77 · 2013-09-11 14:32 · Score: 2

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Bullshit. You, sir, have apparently never been to a track day. I may not hit 200mph, but I regularly get my Ducati 1098 (another example of Italian looks-good-goes-fast technology) to a buck eighty-five. There are three pro tracks within a two-hour ride (one is only forty-five minutes away) from my house that have track days nearly every weekend of the year. For a fee ranging from $40 to about $150 per day, I can drag a knee at 120mph and tuck in for a speed run on the straight-away for hours on end. There are plenty of racing venues that cater to well-heeled speed freaks so we can ride fast in a controlled, reasonably safe environment for a trivial amount of scratch. So fuck you, coward -- too bad you will never get to enjoy the thrill of piloting an exquisitely engineered machine at the edge of its performance envelope. That takes money and balls, two (three?) things you obviously lack.
Impressive! You first acknowledge that the AC's statement was right in your third sentence and then proceed to insult him?
Re:201 mph by mjwx · 2013-09-11 14:54 · Score: 1

A rare reverse-car analogy folks
Personally I prefer my car analogies to be in a forward gear.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:201 mph by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-11 15:32 · Score: 1

I wonder if any street-safe ferrari could make you pass out from the G forces in the future.
No, not likely. Few cars can do 1 G laterally. And those that can are just over 1G. You won't black out until at least 4, if not more.
Even if it could, you'd be a damn fool to try it outside of a controlled track. Even pushing the limit at 1 G can get you killed when you have cracks, a little bit of dirt or even gravel on the road surface.
Re:201 mph by KingMotley · 2013-09-11 15:34 · Score: 2

To my office? I don't think the formula 1 car would survive the potholes.
Re:201 mph by The+Grim+Reefer · 2013-09-11 15:37 · Score: 1

I don't know why the summary gives the impression that all this technology leads to a top speed of 202 mph. Clearly the Side Slip Angle Control and a lot of the other technology mentioned is intended to improve performance while cornering. Improving downforce and handling through the corner doesn't help top speed at all, but it does get you around a twisty track a lot faster.
You are absolutely correct. But it will improve your times and possibly top speed on any track. If you can come out of the corner before a straightaway 10 or 20 mph faster, then you likely can hit a higher speed before decelerating for the turn at the end of it.
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:56 · Score: 0

It's my understanding that douchebaggery is an option with these vehicles. While it's become cliche that most BMW car owners will take the option, BMW motorcycle buyers generally won't. YMMV with other exotic cars and bikes. Parent obviously purchased the option, and seems to be enjoying it.
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:45 · Score: 0

I wonder if any street-safe ferrari could make you pass out from the G forces in the future.
No, not likely. Few cars can do 1 G laterally. And those that can are just over 1G. You won't black out until at least 4, if not more.
Note that tires are more of a limiting factor than cars as such -- certainly, your statement is true; the center of gravity needs to be low enough that you don't roll over, and the suspension takes all hell trying to keep the body level, too. But any automotive engineer could (by compromising other aspects) design things to handle 2G or more.
But we don't have tires that grip pavement with a coefficient of friction much over 1.0, so the only way to conceivably generate 4G lateral acceleration is to generate aerodynamic (or other means -- inverse maglev?) downforce of about 3 times the weight of the car. That's an insanely tall order.
Re:201 mph by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2013-09-11 18:02 · Score: 1

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Don't get to California much, do you?
Seriously. I was doing about 85 in my Z3 on 101 in Mendocino County and got passed by a silver-blue Ferrari that had to be well over 120. Scared the shit out of me.
I've heard tales of sports car owners going over 150 on I-5. I have no idea when they do this, because every time I'm on there it would seem impossible. Maybe they do this further north, where the traffic is lighter.
Try Colusa County or anywhere north of Williams after midnight weekdays. Straight, flat, smooth and dark. On 101 it's a bit trickier due to the lack of straights in the rural areas. Best I've done on101 in the Z3 is 110. On 5, I've run it up to the electronic limiter at 128 several times.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:201 mph by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 21:05 · Score: 0

Seriously. I was doing about 85 in my Z3 on 101 in Mendocino County and got passed by a silver-blue Ferrari that had to be well over 120. Scared the shit out of me.
You should visit Germany :-)
Traveling from Frankfurt to Köln a few days ago and the cars in the center lane were averaging 150km/h (95mph).
If you ran into some slowpoke doing 130-140 you could pass him in the left lane, but first you had to make sure that there wasn't an incoming comet approaching at 250 or more.
Re:201 mph by ameen.ross · 2013-09-11 22:43 · Score: 1

I maxed out my '93 Renault 19 on the autobahn. 200-210 on the tach (125-130 mph). I couldn't count the number of times I was overtaken by someone driving faster than I.

--
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
Re:201 mph by sociocapitalist · 2013-09-11 23:09 · Score: 1

Ferrari built a car that could do 201 mph in 1987. Glad to see they're improving...
Yeah but was that 201 mph around a 90 degree turn ?
(joking of course)

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:201 mph by Tyler+Eaves · 2013-09-12 00:26 · Score: 1

Lateral G's are never going to make you black out. Have to drain the blood from the brain (positive vertical G) to do that. F1 drivers these days are routinely hitting 7g laterally.

--
TODO: Something witty here...
Re:201 mph by Smauler · 2013-09-12 00:48 · Score: 1

The only car I've ever gone off the top of the speedo was an old mini clubman. It was a very long hill, and the speedo did only go up to 90, though. That car had amusingly bad all round drum brakes, and its oil consumption was approximately half its petrol consumption.
I've gone a little faster than that in my Integra type R... 15 to 150 in top gear (to be fair, it doesn't really like chugging at 15 in top, but it can do it ok - 20mph is fine though... 15mph is about 900rpm iirc).
Re:201 mph by Gryle · 2013-09-12 02:41 · Score: 1

Or west Texas for that matter. It's so damn empty out there the state troopers just nod at you when you zip by at 100+ on the back-roads.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:201 mph by thoromyr · 2013-09-12 03:06 · Score: 1

About twenty years ago, late at night driving in some part of California (the trip was from Monterey to Arizona) there was no traffic in sight and many lanes -- I am assuming during a different time of day it would've been packed for there to have been so many lanes. The road was basically flat and straight, a good spot if you wanted to go insanely fast. I was driving a dodge colt and probably managing around 70mph.
I really didn't see the car that passed me, but it was memorable. By the time I'd registered headlights behind me it had disappeared in front of me, despite the considerable visibility both directions.
The next thing that happened was they highway patrol car that blew by. Sure enough, some miles down the road, someone's ride was pulled over.
I'm assuming the thrill was worth the ticket/bribe...
Re:201 mph by intermodal · 2013-09-12 03:19 · Score: 1

I think the point is that he would if his particular machine could.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:201 mph by Hillgiant · 2013-09-12 03:51 · Score: 1

Power to weight. As a motorcyclist, I would imagine you would understand. Even as impressive as the Ferrari's top speed might be. I bet that it will take a much longer straight stretch to reach top speed than your Ducati. Long stretches make for boring tracks (IMHO).

--
-

The lesson here? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:43 · Score: 0

You don't win friends with salad.

Re:The lesson here? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:08 · Score: 0

You don't win friends with salad.
unless you toss it

Traction Control? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:44 · Score: -1

I don't see anything here that hasn't been done before. Heck, Ferrari's have had traction control for a while.

No thanks... by BenSchuarmer · 2013-09-11 09:44 · Score: -1, Offtopic

My '96 Corolla can go faster than the speed limit whenever I want it to.

Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:46 · Score: 1

Even when its in a traffic jam? Because thats the technology I want...
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:49 · Score: -1, Offtopic

But does your Corolla show the world how big your dick is?
Checkmate.
Re:No thanks... by geekoid · 2013-09-11 09:50 · Score: 2

Boring person with boring care isn't interested in exciting things. News at 6 (past your bedtime)

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:No thanks... by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-11 09:52 · Score: 5, Funny

My '96 Corolla can go faster than the speed limit whenever I want it to.
Sure, but it takes 16 city blocks to get up to speed.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:No thanks... by Dogtanian · 2013-09-11 09:58 · Score: 2

But does your Corolla show the world how big your dick is?
Yes, it does. It shows that his dick is pretty big and he doesn't have to rely on a flashy car to impress the girls.

Well, either that or he's skint and can't afford a Ferrari. Not sure which.

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:05 · Score: -1

But does your Corolla show the world how small your dick is?
Checkmate.
FTFY
not sure how you got that wrong... big trucks and fast cars are for the purposes of compensating for smaller than average penis. It's an inverse relationship: the bigger the truck, or the faster or more expensive the car, the smaller the penis.
btw, the answer to the query is yes. Corolla drivers, and any man that drives a car that is a target of shallow ridicule, are obviously not compensating for any perceived deficiency.
Re:No thanks... by SleazyRidr · 2013-09-11 10:19 · Score: 2

Why is it acceptable to say that guys drive cool cars because they have small penises? Would it be ok to say that women get nice handbags because they have small vaginas?

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Re:No thanks... by gagol · 2013-09-11 10:22 · Score: 1

Look for the Detrafficator, may be illegal if your country have laws...

--
Tomorrow is another day...
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:23 · Score: 0

So THAT'S why the call it a *SMART* Car.... I get it now.
Um.. Boys, I'm afraid my minivan is too big..
Re:No thanks... by hedwards · 2013-09-11 10:26 · Score: 1

No, because that would be sexist...
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:27 · Score: 0

Why is it acceptable to say that guys drive cool cars because they have small penises? Would it be ok to say that women get nice handbags because they have small vaginas?
Because men aren't hypersensitive faggots. And for women it goes the other way, small is better than large.
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:37 · Score: 0

You're looking for a motorcycle, then. They've been around for a while!
Re:No thanks... by geekoid · 2013-09-11 10:40 · Score: 1

Who says it's acceptable?
to be a fair comparison small vagina isn't really an insult. But that besides the point.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:No thanks... by geekoid · 2013-09-11 10:42 · Score: 0

Its rude and insulting, but Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex.
It's misogynistic.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:59 · Score: 0

Large vagina is.
In my experience there are lots more large vaginas out there than small penises.
Re:No thanks... by tom17 · 2013-09-11 13:14 · Score: 1

You may jest, but I recently took my '99 Corolla (Automatic, on worn out no-name (Wanli) winter tyres) to a track day with Mustangs and was catching up with some of them :)
Sure, those drivers probably don't know how to drive fast (Everyone has to learn, right!) or were too scared to scratch their precious, but come on, seriously? A Corolla faster than a Mustang? That should not be :)
Made me chuckle inside at least :)
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 13:14 · Score: 0

... and why are many activities and interests which do not impress certain groups all lumped into some stupid sexual context? Believe it or not, some people may actually be genuinely interested in going around a turn fast by their own actions (as opposed to going on a roller coaster ride) and actually do it simply because they want to (and not to impress ladies).
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:07 · Score: 0

and better.
Re: No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:33 · Score: 0

I had a custom mural of myself naked and aroused on the side of both my lifted truck just to dispell this rumor, but the neighbors complained too much.
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:40 · Score: 0

I run two cars on track days. A 1996 Buick Roadmaster with the LT1 350 and a 2004 Buick Regal GS with the supercharged 3800. Both are stock outside but modified mechanically.
I love the look on some guys' faces when I keep up with or pass their muscle machine with grandpa's car(s).
Re:No thanks... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-11 14:59 · Score: 1

I want to take the Astro to a track day, though it would almost certainly disintegrate. I embarrass people with it regularly, even on twisty roads.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:No thanks... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-11 15:01 · Score: 2

Why is it acceptable to say that guys drive cool cars because they have small penises?
Because it's true. Of course, for most of them it's just because they're old, and it's shriveled.

Would it be ok to say that women get nice handbags because they have small vaginas?
If anything, it would be for big ones. But do women really care? Tight, loose, some men will always be interested.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:59 · Score: 0

I don't know, but I'm definitely going to start looking for "nice handbags" in my next girlfriend.
Re:No thanks... by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-09-11 16:24 · Score: 1

Boring person with boring care isn't interested in exciting things.
Did my stint with drag racing and motocross years ago. Fast and pretty exciting. Eventually, they became..... boring. Don't assume that what you find exciting is what everyone else finds exciting.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 19:03 · Score: 0

Why is it acceptable to say that guys drive cool cars because they have small penises? Would it be ok to say that women get nice handbags because they have small vaginas?
Looks like we've got a true Slashdot virgin here... ;)
Re:No thanks... by tom17 · 2013-09-12 00:01 · Score: 1

Fun innit. I know I stung some egos bad that day.
Had a lot of fun too as it was my first time on the track in about 13 years. People talk about some cars not being fun to drive, I reckon any car can be fun if you try hard enough :)
Re:No thanks... by tom17 · 2013-09-12 00:04 · Score: 1

If you have not been on the track, do it - it's a different world.
When I first started racing in ~'95, I already thought of myself as a fairly accomplished driver when it came to car control and picking fast lines. Once I got on the track I learned how wrong I was. You simply can't drive like that on the road unless you are on a closed stage or something. There is always too much to think about, too many compromises to worry about. On the track, you don't have to worry about as much of that and you can concentrate on perfecting the lines and not worrying about getting 'stuck' in a tree (It was this thought that started me out in racing).
Do it :)
Re:No thanks... by tom17 · 2013-09-12 00:05 · Score: 1

Oh and I thought the Corolla would disintegrate, but it made it. All that really happened was 50% wear on a set of brand new front pads that I put on fresh for the day.
Give it an oil change first too :)
Re:No thanks... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-12 00:13 · Score: 1

I fully intend to attend a track day, but not actually in the Astro. Instead I will take my 300SD and see how fast I can go through the trap, I've always wondered. It's pretty easy to pin the needle at 85. I will need another set of tires though, because otherwise I'll have to go around every turn sideways. I bought these for longevity.
I've only ever owned one car that would reasonably do more than a buck twenty-five, and that was my 1960 Dodge Phoenix Dart. It was still rock-steady at that speed, and would have done more. I had my IROC up to that once, then the front started to lift off. Nice one, Chevrolet.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:No thanks... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-12 00:28 · Score: 1

In my experience there are lots more large vaginas out there than small penises.
How fortunate for you! Most people with large vaginas think all penises are small.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:No thanks... by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-12 02:04 · Score: 1

You may jest
As the proud, former owner of not one but two 1992 Toyota Corollas (Well, OK, one was a Geo Prizm, but it's the same damn car), I most certainly do!
In all honestly, that little red riceburner still sits in the top 3 of my list of Favorite Cars I've Owned, after the 76 Trans Am (cripes but that car was fast!) and 81 GMC Stepside I built with my dad. I was super bummed when the transmission gave out.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:No thanks... by tom17 · 2013-09-12 03:10 · Score: 1

'92, weren't they still RWD or something, back when Corollas were cool?
To be clear, my '99 is one of those annoying crapolabox ones that blocks up the roads everywhere you go..
Unless I'm driving it lol...
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g72/06gtpony/GTAMC%20Track%20Day%20-%20May%2015%202013/DSC_0726.jpg
Poor POS car :(
Re:No thanks... by Duhavid · 2013-09-12 03:14 · Score: 1

I have a 99 Safari, the GMC stablemate to the Astro, and I do the same with it.
It handles pretty good, for a huge blue brick.

--
emt 377 emt 4
Re:No thanks... by CanHasDIY · 2013-09-12 03:42 · Score: 1

Nope; the last RWD 'Rolla was the 1987 AE-86 (Hachi Roku) GT-S.
I did, at one point, try to stick a high compression JDM engine in one of my '92s, but the wiring harness and exhaust parts disappeared off the engine during shipping, and were pretty much irreplaceable. :(

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:No thanks... by tompaulco · 2013-09-12 09:10 · Score: 1

You're looking for a motorcycle, then. They've been around for a while!
But going between traffic on a motorcycle is not legal everywhere either. And it is not a good idea anywhere.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 11:51 · Score: 0

Shut the fuck up you pendantic asshole and go make me a sammich. Knit me a goddamned sweater while you're at it.
Re:No thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-13 15:27 · Score: 0

Sounds like someone can't get it up anymore.

and like many Italian sports cars by themushroom · 2013-09-11 09:46 · Score: 1

chances are it gets 8 miles to the gallon, thus you get a top speed of 202 mph for three minutes before the next refill... even though that refill might be in another county.

--
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.

Re:and like many Italian sports cars by the+eric+conspiracy · 2013-09-11 09:51 · Score: 1

The previous version (458 Italia) gets 17.7 mpg.
Probably not at 202 mph though.
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by cruff · 2013-09-11 10:04 · Score: 0

Probably not at 202 mph though.
Which they like to point out on Top Gear every once in a while. I'd like to see what the Stig can do with that one around the track.
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by maroberts · 2013-09-11 10:08 · Score: 1

chances are it gets 8 miles to the gallon, thus you get a top speed of 202 mph for three minutes before the next refill... even though that refill might be in another county.
About 17mpg (US), 21mpg (proper gallons)- this is the previous version. Better than a number of US SUVs.....

--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:27 · Score: 0

Well now this is the thing; 202mph won't mean much if it can't corner, or the handling is mushy, or the breaks are made from milk bottle tops.

Even if it can top the Koenigseggeggeggeggegg it won't matter if Clarkson or Hamster declare it no fun to actually drive, and with the number of electronic driver aids in it, that seems like a distinct possibility.
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by AlexOsadzinski · 2013-09-11 10:31 · Score: 1

Well, not really. Claimed mpg is 17.7 (US gallons). That's achievable in the wet or sport ECU setting, and in auto mode, where the DCT transmission, while still having real clutches and no torque converter, shifts for you, and driving gently. It's very conservative in shifting, and you're in 7th gear by the time you hit 40mph. In manual mode, and enjoying what the car's actually for (having fun), but not driving crazily on public roads, real-life mpg is around 14. And that's with a fair amount of freeway driving.
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by geekoid · 2013-09-11 10:37 · Score: 1

I could find a single modern SUV with worse MPG(proper not the Imperial crap*)
*see how pointless jingoism doesn't help?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by geekoid · 2013-09-11 10:38 · Score: 1

Since Top Gear has become biased whining, I don't understand why they are still relevant.
The races they have are fun to watch,.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:39 · Score: 0

biased whining
Yet no one cares about your opinion.

There's always Top Gear: USA for you. Go watch that instead.
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by AlexOsadzinski · 2013-09-11 10:42 · Score: 2

The Speciale doesn't replace the Italia (the coupe) or the Spider (the convertible). It's typical for Ferrari to announce a coupe first, then the convertible a couple of years later, and then the stripped-down go-fast version a couple of years after that.
The Italia and Spider are very luxurious, while also being super-fast sports cars with great sound and drama. The Speciale is targeted to be much more raw, with fewer amenities, a lot less soundproofing and less weight. It's aimed largely at people who want to track their cars, while still being street legal.
Some Ferraristas love the new body styling, while others don't. It's not as pure as the Italia, but it's way more menacing.
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:03 · Score: 0

It's not our fault that you haven't advanced to the 19th century yet. It might also explain the problems you've been having adopting the theory of evolution.
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by khellendros1984 · 2013-09-11 11:57 · Score: 1

I could find a single modern SUV with worse MPG
Really? Not a single one?

--
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Re:and like many Italian sports cars by PPH · 2013-09-11 14:42 · Score: 2

All you people can think about is speed. I'm waiting for a nice, economical hybrid. At 78 mpg, this beats a Prius (in more ways than one).

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Could Makes Use of this Every Day by NEDHead · 2013-09-11 09:49 · Score: 1

My driveway has several turns that severely limit how quickly I can get down to check on the mail.

mix and match by xorbe · 2013-09-11 09:52 · Score: 1

What does fancy cornering technology have to do with top speed?

Re:mix and match by hedwards · 2013-09-11 10:28 · Score: 1

Unless you're somebody that never turns, the actual top speed of a vehicle is primarily based upon the ability to stop and maneuver at that speed. Going fast in a straight line is relatively easy, maintaining a high speed while maneuvering is substantially harder.
Re:mix and match by geekoid · 2013-09-11 10:33 · Score: 0

top speed means as fast as it can possible go under it's own power.
You fail at pedantry.
I like how you had to change top speed to high speed in order to try and twist the conversation to show people how smart you think you are.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:mix and match by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:45 · Score: 0

What does fancy cornering technology have to do with top speed?
You're American, aren't you?
Re:mix and match by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:36 · Score: 0

Hey, my pickup truck's frame is made of the finest US made ladders and shovels.
Re:mix and match by hedwards · 2013-09-12 04:20 · Score: 1

Yes and ones sexual prowess is best measured by the length of ones penis.
The top speed they cite is completely mythical. Nobody is ever going to achieve it because the conditions don't reflect real life. It's great to know that your car can do over 200mph on a straightaway with perfect conditions, but real world conditions dictate a much lower top speed.
It's a bit like those gas consumption tests, rarely, if ever, do they actually reflect the gas mileage that you would be getting, because the tests don't reflect real life.

1990 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 09:54 · Score: 0

Hopefully this is just the first step in so-called "smart control" speed systems:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Diablo#Diablo

The vehicle could reach 100 km/h (62 mph) in about 4.5 seconds, with a top speed of 202 mph (325 km/h)

Wow, we've come so far. by argStyopa · 2013-09-11 09:59 · Score: 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_F40

(1987...top speed, 201.4 mph)

--
-Styopa

Re:Wow, we've come so far. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:33 · Score: 0

Compare that to todays Ferrari FF: top speed 208 mph, and far more practical (real boot space, 4 seats).
This is a 458, which isn't designed to hold the absolute performance crown. Still, a non-turbo 100 kW/liter engine is impressive.
Re:Wow, we've come so far. by r1348 · 2013-09-11 11:27 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaFerrari
(2013...top speed, 220 mph)
Re:Wow, we've come so far. by tipo159 · 2013-09-11 16:21 · Score: 1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaFerrari
(2013...top speed, 220 mph)
The LaFerrari? That is Ferrari's hybrid.

Some say... by bobdehnhardt · 2013-09-11 10:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Can't wait for The Stig to take it round the track. Some say his home computer is a Commodore Amiga, and he still believes 640K is more than enough RAM for anyone.

Re:Some say... by opus_magnum · 2013-09-11 10:12 · Score: 1

Can't wait for The Stig to take it round the track. Some say his home computer is a Commodore Amiga , and he still believes 640K is more than enough RAM for anyone.
ITYM 512k then!
Re:Some say... by SleazyRidr · 2013-09-11 10:21 · Score: 1

If 512k is enough then 640k (being more than 512k) is more than enough.

--
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Re:Some say... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:22 · Score: 0

My Amiga1000 had 2.5 Megabytes of RAM about 4 (1984) years before the 'standard PC' was at 640k. Thanks for asking. Come again.
Re:Some say... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:35 · Score: 0

Around Chicago... It seems like Stig is enjoying the sound of chiptunes this week.
Re:Some say... by drinkypoo · 2013-09-11 14:55 · Score: 1

Can't wait for The Stig to take it round the track. Some say his home computer is a Commodore Amiga , and he still believes 640K is more than enough RAM for anyone.
ITYM 512k then!
Why not 256kB then? Because statistically everyone with an A1000 got at least 512kB?

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Some say... by deroby · 2013-09-11 22:09 · Score: 1

Oh come on, the Stig would know better, the first thing everyone bought was the FAST-ram expansion.
(although, looking it up on wikipedia it now turns out the trapdoor expansion actually contained "slow ram"... wtf ?! Even though it's been 25 years, I feel cheated now =)
Come to think about it, my A4000 had 18Mb's of ram [**] a gigantic luxury at the time. Although I had no VMM (68030) and thus no virtual-memory I hardly ever ran out of ram. Amazing how the need for memory has gone through the roof... My laptop currently has 3.23 Gb in use, who would have believed that at the time)
(**: fun fact about that was that I had bought the ram many months before I actually got to order the A4000 (from a failing Compaq-store); plugging it in was a tense moment, but luckily it worked without a hitch =)

--
If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
Re:Some say... by opus_magnum · 2013-09-12 19:35 · Score: 1

Oh come on, the Stig would know better, the first thing everyone bought was the FAST-ram expansion. (although, looking it up on wikipedia it now turns out the trapdoor expansion actually contained "slow ram"... wtf ?! Even though it's been 25 years, I feel cheated now =)
Slow-fast ram.
Fast because it wasn't chip memory, but slow because it was on the same bus as Agnus, or so I recall.

I'd like to know... by roc97007 · 2013-09-11 10:01 · Score: 1

...what kind of recurring maintenance all those systems need, and if they have reasonable failure modes. Or, does the car just, like, explode like a meteorite when the handling controls fail.

Oooooh. Aaaaaah. Sorry about Bill...

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:I'd like to know... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 16:58 · Score: 0

Um did you you miss the 'Ferrari' part? You might as well buy the nearest repair shop, that way you'll cut your losses.
Re:I'd like to know... by roc97007 · 2013-09-11 18:03 · Score: 1

Um did you you miss the 'Ferrari' part? You might as well buy the nearest repair shop, that way you'll cut your losses.
So, it's the exploding one, then. Ok.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Now put it all together by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:02 · Score: 0

When do we get the autonomous, really fast cars, that are super efficient?

Obvious choice for more intelligent people. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:18 · Score: 0

McLaren 12C.

Corners like a housefly. Is more comfortable. Better built. Cheaper. AND faster. And consumes less petrol.
Outruns every Ferrari. The 12 Spider is even more rigid than then 458 convertible.

Ferrari sucks.

My Mazerati does 185 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:19 · Score: 0

My Mazerati does 185, I lost my license, now I don't drive....
But seriously, you need a closed track to even go half ways fast with one of these, otherwise you either kill the pedestrian or run the speedy shiny into the cement mixer. You wind up a spot on the side, and they scrape the fine Italian engineering into the recycling bin. The fastest thing I ever worked on (that you can travel in) was an F104 Starfighter. It could go about 1380 miles per hour. The real joy is that once you are above about 150 feet, you don't have to worry so much about running into stuff (pedestrians, cement mixers, other Italian speedy shinies where the driver tries to go 185 (looses license, then doesn't drive)). So the upshot of having a car that goes 400 or 800 miles per hour is that it's impractical. Its ok for a dick measuring contest, but that's about it.

Re:My Mazerati does 185 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:23 · Score: 0

If you don't even know how to spell Maserati, I seriously doubt you own one.
Re:My Mazerati does 185 by supervillainsf · 2013-09-11 10:59 · Score: 1

If you don't even know how to spell Maserati, I seriously doubt you own one.
Whoosh - that's the sound of a Maserati passing over your head.
Re:My Mazerati does 185 by LynnwoodRooster · 2013-09-11 12:01 · Score: 1

You just made Joe Walsh shed a tear...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:My Mazerati does 185 by PPH · 2013-09-11 14:28 · Score: 1

The real joy is that once you are above about 150 feet, you don't have to worry so much about running into stuff
The 500 kV power line towers out behind my place are taller than that. You'd make a nice plasma arc.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:My Mazerati does 185 by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 18:14 · Score: 0

Who? What? Why?

Free market giveth, collectivist gov't taketh away by roman_mir · 2013-09-11 10:21 · Score: -1

Ferrari is obviously awesome, the company understands what many people want in a car. Of-course few people can afford a car from a company that understands this, but then there is the government, which is actively against everything people actually want and the government has the power to destroy what the free market does to satisfy customer demand.

My point is: the roads. Ferrari needs to invest into building private roads around the world and it should lobby and ensure that gov't cops are NOT allowed on those roads and that people on those roads CAN in fact exercise their own will and do in their lives as they see fit rather than some collectivist mob version of totalitarian oppression control...

--
You can't handle the truth.

so finally by geekoid · 2013-09-11 10:30 · Score: 1

cars are using tech to go fast. It's about time~

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Free market giveth, collectivist gov't taketh a by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:31 · Score: 0

Roman, you're such an hero. Why don't you take a bullet for us?

Too slow by gmuslera · 2013-09-11 10:41 · Score: 1

In a race a DeLorean reachs the finish line like 30 years before the Ferrari.

Clarkson!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 10:57 · Score: 0

What does Jezza have to say.

I know better than to expect any word from The Stig.

You know... Some say, that his latest romantic interest is none other than Lewis Hamilton's rear wing.

Whoopie by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 11:29 · Score: 0

And the Nissan GT-R will still beat the shit out of it.

Re:Whoopie by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:10 · Score: 0

Gran Turismo is flawed

Germany vs Italy by GoogleShill · 2013-09-11 11:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

My 996 Porsche 911 Turbo had steering wheel angle, yaw rate and lateral acceleration sensors and could brake each wheel independently. It also had a viscous coupling in the center diff to keep up to 90% of the power to the rear wheels, only giving the fronts as much as they needed. The 997 model introduced an electromagnetic coupling for even more precise control (and the ability to run different diameter tires). Even in a 50 MPH slide with all four wheels spinning, that thing would go almost exactly where you pointed it. That feeling is one of the finer things in life.

I didn't RTFA, but I don't see what Ferrari has done here that Porsche didn't have 9 years ago.

Re:Germany vs Italy by gr8_phk · 2013-09-11 13:38 · Score: 1

I work with guys who did yaw-stability-control calibration. Apparently it's quite satisfying to get it dialled-in just right. It's also not so much a high-end feature any more.
Re:Germany vs Italy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:34 · Score: 0

Oh, please... Comparing a Ferrari with a Porsche is just like comparing a glass of Barolo with a bottle of beer... It's just embarrassing. And obviously the price is quite different.
Re:Germany vs Italy by sociocapitalist · 2013-09-11 23:11 · Score: 1

My 996 Porsche 911 Turbo had steering wheel angle, yaw rate and lateral acceleration sensors and could brake each wheel independently. It also had a viscous coupling in the center diff to keep up to 90% of the power to the rear wheels, only giving the fronts as much as they needed. The 997 model introduced an electromagnetic coupling for even more precise control (and the ability to run different diameter tires). Even in a 50 MPH slide with all four wheels spinning, that thing would go almost exactly where you pointed it. That feeling is one of the finer things in life.
I didn't RTFA, but I don't see what Ferrari has done here that Porsche didn't have 9 years ago.
Put a little horse icon on it?

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Germany vs Italy by tinkerton · 2013-09-12 07:40 · Score: 1

I'm guessing you don't know much about cars , but it's a fun remark either way :)
Re:Germany vs Italy by sociocapitalist · 2013-09-12 21:19 · Score: 1

I'm guessing you don't know much about cars , but it's a fun remark either way :)
Your comment is offensive and so not really funny either way :-)

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Germany vs Italy by tinkerton · 2013-09-12 21:30 · Score: 1

Oh come on. Maybe insulting is commonplace on /. but I'm not into that. I'll explain. Porsche also has a horse in its logo. So let's assume you knew that. Then your comment was funny because you could follow it up with "Ah, bad luck there too!"
Re:Germany vs Italy by sociocapitalist · 2013-09-13 01:05 · Score: 1

Oh come on. Maybe insulting is commonplace on /. but I'm not into that. I'll explain. Porsche also has a horse in its logo. So let's assume you knew that. Then your comment was funny because you could follow it up with "Ah, bad luck there too!"
Ah I see!!
Guess I am ignorant though :-D

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

Looks at watch... by Nefarious+Wheel · 2013-09-11 12:08 · Score: 1

(Looks at watch, presses lap timer)
"September... October... November..."

--
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear

That'd be a Bitch... by Greyfox · 2013-09-11 12:18 · Score: 2

A while back I jokingly told a fellow skydiver I refused to fall slower than the top speed in my car. Average terminal velocity is 120 mph. Falling at 200mph would be kind of a bitch. I might be able to fall faster than the Ferrari if you pushed it out the back of the plane, though (Actually, that'd make an awesome Red Bull commercial...)

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Mitsibishi did this way before Prosche by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 14:03 · Score: 2, Informative

They introduced AYC in 1996 with Lancer Evolution IV. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Yaw_Control
The system takes inputs: .steering angle .lateral acceleration .longitudinal acceleration .throttle position .wheel speed
And actuates the hydraulic system to split the torque on rear axel helping the car in turn in and out of the corner.
In 2001, with Evolution VII in addition to rear differential they introduced ACD - Active Center Differential, that would modulate torque between front and rear axel. In addition almost all JDM models had torsen front differential.

This is most sophisticated AWD system on the market. Porsche pfft...

Re:Mitsibishi did this way before Prosche by GoogleShill · 2013-09-12 01:44 · Score: 1

And yet, the 911 GT2 RS is still a full 33 seconds faster around the Nurburgring than the fastest Evo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times

I used to be like you. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:09 · Score: 1

Comparing vettes to Ferrari until I drove an F12 Berlinetta. Z06, ZR1 are both great cars, even the base vette is amazing.

None of them compare to the latest and greatest driving experience from Ferrari.

This is interesting? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 15:11 · Score: 0

You guys moderated a squid douchebag as interesting?

Re:This is interesting? by Bigbutt · 2013-09-12 01:04 · Score: 1

"Squid"? Do you understand the meaning of the term? Some guy on his Duc on a track is absolutely not a squid since track requirements are pretty strict. I have a one piece leather suit, full face helmet, gloves past the wrists and boots past the ankles when I hit the track on my 'busa or SV in addition to taped up lights and non-slippery coolant (no 'anti-freeze' allowed).
The only douchebag here are the ACs showing their ignorance.
[John]

--
Shit better not happen!

so... by smash · 2013-09-11 16:03 · Score: 1

At 202 mph, they are 1 mph better than tha official top speed of the Ferrari F-40, released in 1987.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

Re:so... by RivenAleem · 2013-09-12 00:10 · Score: 1

Yeah, same for computers, it's a pain that there's been no progress since Pentium 4's 4Ghz processors

What is the point of the summary? by tipo159 · 2013-09-11 16:38 · Score: 1

Forget EV batteries and autonomous driving. Ferrari understands old-school advanced car tech — basically, they just want to make the thing go ridiculously fast.

What is "old-school advanced car tech"? The original "old-school advanced car tech" was stuff to make cars reliable and serviceable in an environment of poor-quality roads and no service centers. Or maybe the "old-school advanced car tech" that Saab created to make their cars safe. The phrase certainly doesn't equate to making the thing go ridiculously fast in my mind.

Yay! Ferrari made another fast car. But everyone is playing with electronics to do the same kinds of things these days and McLaren road cars probably makes better use of their electronics than most any Ferrari does. As far as advanced car tech, I think Lamborghini's use of carbon and how much weight they have been able to take weight out of their cars is a lot more interesting.

Chasssis by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 17:21 · Score: 0

mod+++

Re:Chasssis by doccus · 2013-09-12 18:08 · Score: 1

mod+++
Agreed!
Re:Chasssis by doccus · 2013-09-12 18:10 · Score: 1

Can we mod the editarring doown.. fore knot yewsing spilling chuuck?

Where are the patent trolls? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 19:31 · Score: 0

I'm sure someone has patented the idea of "going really fast" !!

They should recieve 10% of sales from every car maker in the world that has a car or cars that go "really fast"!!

Absolutely useless by YoungManKlaus · 2013-09-11 20:29 · Score: 1

You are not allowed to drive that fast anywhere in the world anyhow (except germany where you cant because the highways are full anyhow). I'd rather have a more comfy car that does a top of 200 (km/h that is) but it utterly silent and efficient (can we do 5l per 100km in _real_ conditions?) until you hit at least 150.

Re:Absolutely useless by tinkerton · 2013-09-11 22:32 · Score: 1

Oh you still can go fast in Germany. But I don't need fast nor comfy. The most fun is to be had with a small, unassuming, weak engined and quiet car with good pedals , sufficient feedback from the wheel and tyres that don't squeal to easily . That way you get to use skill often and safely(if you're smart) while not pissing off those who live near the corners where you push it.
Oh, and try to get one with not too much oversteer.

The main purpose of a Ferraris is to go fast? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-11 22:48 · Score: 0

I thought the Ferrarris are mostly used to prove to the rest of the world that you are a massive self absorbed prick with lots of money.

Meanwhile in Germany by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 02:11 · Score: 0

... everybody yawns, as we ACTUALLY have been driving our motorcycles and/or cars with ease up to 192mp/h (310 km/h) for 14 years. Suzuki Hayabusa was 1999.
Numerous other vehicles followed. Big AUDIs or Porsches go 320 km/h.

YAWN.

Re:Free market giveth, collectivist gov't taketh a by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 02:20 · Score: 0

Why would he need to take a bullet for you?

All roman needs to do is buy up Ferrari the company with his own money, then tell it to do what he said about the roads and lobbying

I for one will eagerly wait for that to happen. There might even be jobs for us to be his lobbyists and road builders! roman would become... a job creator!

Go on roman! I'm cheering for ya!

Mercedes always ahead in the trends by Uncle+Mark+(AUS) · 2013-09-12 02:36 · Score: 1

The McLarens have been using this for a couple of years now already.

That's a crazy idea! by azav · 2013-09-12 02:57 · Score: 1

Almost so crazy that it might just work!

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

Ferrari is junk by ToddInSF · 2013-09-12 05:01 · Score: 1

The cars are overpriced, poorly built, and there is virtually zero technological innovation.

Wait... Are we talking Apple or Ferrari ?

Re:Free market giveth, collectivist gov't taketh a by rhodium_mir · 2013-09-12 05:32 · Score: 1

The particularly impressive thing about Ferrari is that they manage to be so successful in a country where the government not only steals their money to pay for "healthcare" and "education", but also literally steals their employees for six weeks a year by mandating minimums for paid time off.

--
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".

Ferrari's a day late and a dollar short. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-12 06:57 · Score: 0

This sounds a lot like the same tech used in the GT-R. A bit late, Ferrari.

Citation Needed by tinkerton · 2013-09-12 07:35 · Score: 1

are routinely hitting 7g laterally.

Can you back up that number? It's a tad high. I've read numbers of max 6 g in high speed cornering,and that's exceptional.

Re:Free market giveth, collectivist gov't taketh a by Anonymous Coward · 2013-09-13 00:41 · Score: 0

Exactly! Any sane profit-seeking capitalist would see that there obvious and easy ways to improve the efficiency at Ferrari by getting rid of those programs.

If somebody awesome like roman_mir is in charge, I'm sure he can relocate the company to another country that doesn't have all that socialist bullshit, and the money saved can be used to lobby government and build private roads! That again, of course, requires roman_mir to go buy up Ferrari first.

I wait in excitement for roman_mir to do this. The power rests in him to improve Ferrari, the economy, and the world.

Slashdot Mirror

Ferrari's New Car Tech Idea: Make Car Go Really Fast

226 comments