Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

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

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the just-strap-rockets-to-it dept.

Transportation 226

cartechboy writes "Forget EV batteries and autonomous driving. Ferrari understands old-school advanced car tech — basically, they just want to make the thing go ridiculously fast. The Italians showed off very serious chasis technology today in the new Ferrari Speciale at the Frankfurt Auto Show. The new electronic 'Side Slip angle Control' system uses algorithms that compute and analyze lateral acceleration, yaw angle, steering wheel angle and wheel speed in real-time. The system compares these readings to target data, and then just adjusts traction control and electric differential to be more efficient. Top speed: 202 mph."

cancel ×

226 comments

Please proofread (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44823859)

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

202 mph (1)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | about 10 months ago | (#44823887)

That's about 90.3 m/s!

Re:202 mph (3, Funny)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about 10 months ago | (#44824211)

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 (1)

Tx (96709) | about 10 months ago | (#44824253)

The Veyron costs like 5 times as much.

Re:202 mph (2)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#44824297)

The Veyron costs like 5 times as much.

Also contains massive quantities of unobtainium.

Re:202 mph (5, Interesting)

You're All Wrong (573825) | about 10 months ago | (#44824431)

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

Re:202 mph (4, Insightful)

dicobalt (1536225) | about 10 months ago | (#44824517)

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 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44825031)

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 (4, Informative)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 10 months ago | (#44824619)

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 (5, Insightful)

AlexOsadzinski (221254) | about 10 months ago | (#44824707)

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 (1)

vlad30 (44644) | about 10 months ago | (#44824847)

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

Re:202 mph (3, Insightful)

doctor woot (2779597) | about 10 months ago | (#44824911)

I really pity whoever needs to fork out 2 million for a chance at getting laid.

Re:202 mph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824795)

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 (1)

rssrss (686344) | about 10 months ago | (#44824861)

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.

Re:202 mph (3, Insightful)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | about 10 months ago | (#44824863)

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.

Re:202 mph (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824873)

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 (4, Informative)

Flere Imsaho (786612) | about 10 months ago | (#44824943)

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.

Ferrari (1)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | about 10 months ago | (#44823895)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824069)

New Idea: Make car go faster

I already patented that... I'll see them in court.

Re:Ferrari (0)

loufoque (1400831) | about 10 months ago | (#44824609)

A Ferrari is useless.
Most people who buy ones usually sell them not too long after.

Re:Ferrari (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 10 months ago | (#44824655)

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.

And that's why (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44823909)

That's why I bought a Saturn.

Re:And that's why (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#44824301)

That's why I bought a Saturn.

Yeah, they're real gone. Literally!

Nice video (1)

madprof (4723) | about 10 months ago | (#44823923)

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 (5, Insightful)

swaq (989895) | about 10 months ago | (#44823933)

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

Re:201 mph (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 10 months ago | (#44824079)

Safely? Relatively speaking that is.

Re:201 mph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824213)

Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.

Re:201 mph (4, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#44824347)

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:

Re:201 mph (1)

rssrss (686344) | about 10 months ago | (#44824821)

They are going to be really spectacular on wreckedexotics.com

Re:201 mph (3, Informative)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | about 10 months ago | (#44824891)

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.

Re:201 mph (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 10 months ago | (#44825077)

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.

Re:201 mph (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824147)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824335)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824631)

That's like saying processors haven't gotten much better since my computer ten years ago had 2.4 GHz.

Re:201 mph (5, Funny)

MassiveForces (991813) | about 10 months ago | (#44824941)

A rare reverse-car analogy folks

Re:201 mph (1)

ehiris (214677) | about 10 months ago | (#44824755)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824855)

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 (1)

orion205 (1130561) | about 10 months ago | (#44824869)

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 (1)

snero3 (610114) | about 10 months ago | (#44824965)

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. ;)

Re:201 mph (1)

stymy (1223496) | about 10 months ago | (#44825055)

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 (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about 10 months ago | (#44825177)

And they keep overpricing each year...

The lesson here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44823941)

You don't win friends with salad.

Traction Control? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44823945)

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

No thanks... (-1, Offtopic)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about 10 months ago | (#44823947)

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

Re:No thanks... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44823965)

Even when its in a traffic jam? Because thats the technology I want...

Re:No thanks... (1)

gagol (583737) | about 10 months ago | (#44824373)

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

Re:No thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824547)

You're looking for a motorcycle, then. They've been around for a while!

Re:No thanks... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824015)

But does your Corolla show the world how big your dick is?

Checkmate.

Re:No thanks... (2)

Dogtanian (588974) | about 10 months ago | (#44824135)

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.

Re:No thanks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824205)

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... (2)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 10 months ago | (#44824337)

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?

Re:No thanks... (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 10 months ago | (#44824421)

No, because that would be sexist...

Re:No thanks... (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#44824611)

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

It's misogynistic.

Re:No thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824425)

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... (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#44824595)

Who says it's acceptable?

to be a fair comparison small vagina isn't really an insult. But that besides the point.

Re:No thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824741)

Large vagina is.

In my experience there are lots more large vaginas out there than small penises.

Re:No thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824383)

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... (2)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#44824029)

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

Re:No thanks... (5, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 10 months ago | (#44824065)

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.

Looks at watch... (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 10 months ago | (#44825095)

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

and like many Italian sports cars (1)

themushroom (197365) | about 10 months ago | (#44823971)

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.

Re:and like many Italian sports cars (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#44824049)

The previous version (458 Italia) gets 17.7 mpg.

Probably not at 202 mph though.

Re:and like many Italian sports cars (0)

cruff (171569) | about 10 months ago | (#44824193)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824427)

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 (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#44824561)

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

Re:and like many Italian sports cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824587)

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 (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 10 months ago | (#44824235)

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.....

Re:and like many Italian sports cars (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#44824543)

I could find a single modern SUV with worse MPG(proper not the Imperial crap*)

*see how pointless jingoism doesn't help?

Re:and like many Italian sports cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824773)

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 (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | about 10 months ago | (#44825005)

I could find a single modern SUV with worse MPG

Really? [wikipedia.org] Not [fueleconomy.gov] a single [fueleconomy.gov] one?

Re:and like many Italian sports cars (2)

AlexOsadzinski (221254) | about 10 months ago | (#44824615)

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 (1)

AlexOsadzinski (221254) | about 10 months ago | (#44824477)

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.

Could Makes Use of this Every Day (1)

NEDHead (1651195) | about 10 months ago | (#44824017)

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

mix and match (1)

xorbe (249648) | about 10 months ago | (#44824061)

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

Re:mix and match (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 10 months ago | (#44824447)

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 (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#44824503)

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.

Re:mix and match (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824925)

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

You're American, aren't you?

1990 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824091)

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

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

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. (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 10 months ago | (#44824145)

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

(1987...top speed, 201.4 mph)

Re:Wow, we've come so far. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824507)

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.

Some say... (5, Funny)

bobdehnhardt (18286) | about 10 months ago | (#44824165)

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... (1)

opus_magnum (1688810) | about 10 months ago | (#44824273)

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... (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about 10 months ago | (#44824363)

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

Re:Some say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824371)

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824531)

Around Chicago... It seems like Stig is enjoying the sound of chiptunes this week.

I'd like to know... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 10 months ago | (#44824167)

...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...

Now put it all together (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824181)

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

Obvious choice for more intelligent people. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824329)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824333)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824385)

If you don't even know how to spell Maserati, I seriously doubt you own one.

Re:My Mazerati does 185 (1)

supervillainsf (820395) | about 10 months ago | (#44824743)

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 (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | about 10 months ago | (#44825039)

You just made Joe Walsh shed a tear...

Free market giveth, collectivist gov't taketh away (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about 10 months ago | (#44824361)

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...

Re:Free market giveth, collectivist gov't taketh a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824475)

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

so finally (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 10 months ago | (#44824461)

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

Too slow (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 10 months ago | (#44824601)

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

Clarkson!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824729)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#44824835)

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

Germany vs Italy (3, Interesting)

GoogleShill (2732413) | about 10 months ago | (#44824923)

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.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...