×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the gas-guzzlers-that-make-your-eyes-bleed dept.

Transportation 790

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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

790 comments

Hell yeah! (5, Funny)

SirBitBucket (1292924) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590865)

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

Re:Hell yeah! (0)

enoz (1181117) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591073)

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

If I ever see.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28590869)

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.

Posting anonymously so I won't be blamed when someone actually does it.

Re:If I ever see.. (3, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590887)

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

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

Re:If I ever see.. (5, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590965)

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

Re:If I ever see.. (5, Insightful)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590945)

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.

Re:If I ever see.. (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591113)

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.

Re:If I ever see.. (1)

powerslave12r (1389937) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591217)

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.

Re:If I ever see.. (1)

Antlerbot (1419715) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591139)

So...why does this guy get troll, while the parent gets insightful? Because he used big nasty swear words?

Re:If I ever see.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591285)

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.

Think of the Virgens! (3, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591215)

Why? The Veyron is an incredible piece of engineering. Bugatti sell them at a LOSS if I recall. The workmanship is astounding.

Not only that, but according to the Wired article,

they had to sacrifice 100 virgins and have the production facility in Molsheim, France, blessed by druids.

I completely disagree with sacrificing virgins, so anybody who buys this car is implicitly supporting the destruction of virgins.

Re:If I ever see.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591257)

fuck yeah! legs are self-healing anyway.

idiot.

Re:If I ever see.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591325)

only if still attached to the body.

Re:If I ever see.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591267)

Of course, posting physical threats and insults under the name "Goldberg's Pants" isn't the height of manhood, fuck face. Why are you even posting? Shouldn't you be manning the local glory hole? I took a dump an hour ago that had more fortitude then your sorry ass. GP may be an asshole, but you are the diseased shit that came out of it. Die. Just fucking die you pile of damp, stinking uselessness.

Re:If I ever see.. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591343)

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?

Re:If I ever see.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591199)

I think someone's a more than a bit jealous...

Top Gear Veyron goodness (5, Funny)

errittus (13200) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590871)

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

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

Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591093)

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

Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (5, Informative)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591171)

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

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

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

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

Re:Top Gear Veyron goodness (2, Insightful)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591337)

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.

redundant (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28590873)

frost1 piss is redundant

Just in time for my midlife crysis! (0, Offtopic)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590881)

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

Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! (0, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590929)

how about a spell checker?

Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28590995)

No. First off, you didn't even capitalize "how". Second, I copied the whole thing into a spell checker just to make sure: It found no errors. That does not mean there were or were not any errors, but the spell checker obviously wouldn't fix them.

Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591039)

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

Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! (4, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591049)

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

Re:Just in time for my midlife crysis! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591055)

"Crysis" is the name of a video game, you idiot. In real life, we spell it "crisis".

Waste ? Dont agree (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590885)

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).

Guilty conscience? (5, Insightful)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590889)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (1, Insightful)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590969)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (0)

Splab (574204) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591123)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (1, Insightful)

tempguest (1355545) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590981)

... 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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (5, Insightful)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591023)

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

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

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

Re:Guilty conscience? (1)

velen (1198819) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591203)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (5, Insightful)

onescomplement (998675) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591207)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591261)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591279)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591225)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591319)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591007)

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.)

Re:Guilty conscience? (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591029)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (1)

floodo1 (246910) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591037)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (5, Insightful)

andytrevino (943397) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591075)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (4, Insightful)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591167)

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

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

Re:Guilty conscience? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591195)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591245)

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

Re:Guilty conscience? (0, Troll)

bigsteve@dstc (140392) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591329)

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?

Re:Guilty conscience? (0, Troll)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591079)

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.

Re:Guilty conscience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591141)

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

interesting fact (-1, Offtopic)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590891)

Most people don't know this but as far as I know, it's still true. The Bugatti Veyron is a Chevy because they own the company.

Re:interesting fact (3, Funny)

tsa (15680) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590913)

GM owns Volkswagen [wikipedia.org]? That is news to me.

Re:interesting fact (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591045)

GM owns Volkswagen [wikipedia.org]? 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.

Re:interesting fact (2, Informative)

ximenes (10) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590923)

Bugatti Automobiles SAS is a subsidiary of Volkswagen, and is actually a new company founded in 2000. As far as I'm aware, none of the former Bugatti companies were ever associated with GM; even if they were, a subsidiary can certainly make cars distinct from its parent company if the corporate structure permits.

Re:interesting fact (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591115)

Actually, it's a Porsche. Bugatti is owned by Volkswagen, who are in turn majority owned by Porsche.

Lamborghini is also owned by Porsche.

Guilty conscience? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28590905)

Sorry, but if I had one, my guilty conscience would have been left behind on the road, choking on the dust from my Veyron.

A bit overblown (0, Troll)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590921)

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?

Re:A bit overblown (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28590983)

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.

Re:A bit overblown (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591005)

airplanes don't turn on a dime with traction.
rocket cars don't turn, period.

Re:A bit overblown (5, Funny)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591015)

"TFA waffles on about how Bugatti had to work on the structure to make it survive at 250 miles per hour, but honestly, speeds like that are just routine for twin engined aeroplanes."

Not on tarmac they aren't. You're neglecting the fact that the only thing keeping the Veyron on the road are four bits of rubber. Let's see the plane this is supposedly routine for do 250mph along the ground for any length of time. What an utterly ridiculous statement. You may as well say "The Space Shuttle does more than that easily!" It'd be as equally stupid and irrelevant.

Do 500mph in a plane, then do 100mph in a car. Which was the rougher ride? Stressed "a bit more"? Are you insane?

As a racer I'm just honestly astounded you'd make such a wrong headed comparison. I am just overwhelmed here with all the reasons you are so incredibly misguided.

As for your second equally demented paragraph, the Veyron is ROAD LEGAL! None of the cars you're talking about are.

Good god it's amazing you can dress yourself. Do you accidentally find yourself trying to wear bananas on your feet? Or perhaps a melon instead of a tie? Because honestly, your comparisons make me wonder what else you get so easily confused by. If you think the Veyron is comparable to a plane then...

I'm sorry, I'm just utterly baffled by you. But then if you read this you're probably going to try and type your reply on a bowl of soup. After all it's similar to a keyboard.

Re:A bit overblown (4, Informative)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591105)

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.

Re:A bit overblown (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591131)

Ok, the "are you stupid" replies are common on /., but you kind of overdid it. I mean, I am just overwhelmed here with how much you are bashing him. Good god, it's amazing you managed to make a point having spent over half a post saying how much of an idiot the GP is. I' m sorry, I'm just utterly baffled by you, did he hit some sort of sensitive chord? Because the GP was really not a ridiculous post, regardless if it is correct or not. Anyway, don't be mad at me too, I am just typing random things on a bowl of lentil soup, it is kind of similar to my keyboard [ergocanada.com].

Re:A bit overblown (1)

onescomplement (998675) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591253)

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.)

Re:A bit overblown (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591291)

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]

Amateurs (2, Insightful)

Tanman (90298) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591043)

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.

Re:A bit overblown (1)

floodo1 (246910) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591067)

Seriously d00d, you really think the engineering achievement of a 1950's era salt flats type of car even begins to compare? /ridiculous

Re:A bit overblown (1)

Bork (115412) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591085)

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.

Re:A bit overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591097)

I'd rather have a Tesla.

Re:A bit overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591169)

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.

Re:A bit overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591221)

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.

Re:A bit overblown (1)

SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591273)

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.

It's the ultimate halo car (5, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590939)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_vehicle [wikipedia.org]
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.

It's a dinosaur. (2, Funny)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590941)

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. [greencarmagazine.net]

RS

"Guilty conscience" (0, Flamebait)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#28590953)

Yeah, like they gonna sell millions of these. Keep your commie green cool aid to yourself, eh, monkey boy?!

Re:"Guilty conscience" (2, Insightful)

johnlcallaway (165670) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591001)

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.

Re:"Guilty conscience" (4, Interesting)

nidarus (240160) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591035)

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!

Car analogy (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591013)

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.

It's degrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591025)

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.

Bugatti Veyron = 27 MP3's (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591081)

Kinda puts it in perspective..............

Yeah, I know it's supposed to be sexy and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591103)

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?

It's rather small (1)

hoarier (1545701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591117)

For enhanced automotive stupidity (extra length, extra ugliness, extra thirst, all-around extra arrogance), try a car with a 27-litre engine [youtube.com]. As a bonus, you also get an extra hammy narration, so all in all it's just what your inner nine-year-old craves.

Finance a car loan (5, Funny)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591161)

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.

It is not about the top speed... (1)

(H)elix1 (231155) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591183)

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....

 

My question (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591237)

What advantages does this motor car have over, say, a train -- which I could also afford?

Veyron? Meh. (1)

Bovineck (200068) | more than 4 years ago | (#28591299)

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!

Veyron is not the most ridiculous car ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28591311)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...