The Bugatti Veyron 657
An anonymous reader writes "OK, most /.ers cannot afford the Veyron, but reading this article at HowStuffWorks is still fascinating. How do you fit 1,000 horsepower into a compact engine? How do you keep a passenger car on the road at 250+ MPH? The article links to a set of videos on the Veyron engine that are also very good. Are there any cars out there better than this?" There's also a story by Popular Science.
On the road? (Score:5, Funny)
Who cares? I want my flying car!
Re:On the road? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:On the road? (Score:3, Informative)
I am living proof this is not true. You just have to be careful, and spend a lot of your time driving around at 4AM on empty highways. I very frequently drive most of the way to work at around 140 MPH. Where I live, we have LONG stretches of highway with no on-ramps, and walls/barricades on both sides, and long flat sections where you can literally see for miles and miles. And my car is usuall
Random fact... (Score:5, Interesting)
Does 186MPH in 14 seconds.. must be a terrifying experience for both the driver, and for his wallet when he comes to fill it up!
Re:Random fact... (Score:2)
Re:Random fact... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Random fact... (Score:5, Informative)
When you drop off the top, you get to accelerate at a little less than 1G (freefall minus any drag in the coaster), which, coincidentally, is about what it takes to make it to 60 MPH (~27M/sec) in 3 seconds.
So, in that regard you're more or less right.
Of course, the sad thing is that a decent sport bike can still beat it to 60, and some of them can give it a run for its money up to about 200.
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Random fact... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not so terrifying, I assure you. Just... awesome!
Americans might want to try a Triumph instead (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.triumph.co.uk/site/bikes/page.cfm?Bi
2.2l engine in a motorcycle, yes, it is insane, but it accelerates faster than a sportsbike. To get the best acceleration out of it you need to be carrying a pillion, though on thinking about it maybe that wouldn't be necessary in the US.
Re:Random fact... (Score:5, Interesting)
The actual G forces really aren't much more than you can accomplish in a typical street car, it's just that high horsepower cars are able to sustain 1G acceleration for much longer than your typical commuter car.
With the same tires, my car would probably stay neck and neck with this thing up to about 30 MPH, but then my ability to accelerate starts being limited by horsepower instead of tire traction.
This actually has the interesting implication that if you know the fastest you ever want to go and can sustain 1G acceleration up to that point, any additional horsepower is a waste of weight which will detract from the vehicle's braking and cornering performance. (Tire frictional force is nonlinear WRT weight.)
(Note: I'm ignoring downforce.)
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
1001 HP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:1001 HP? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can think of turbos and superchargers as air compressors. This is how they feed enough air into the engine. (The common term is "forced induction", versus "naturally aspirated".) You can starve an en
Re:Random fact... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Random fact... (Score:5, Informative)
I come up with 3.13 mpg at 250 mph for the thing. Thats damn good.
But if he is crusing it won't take all that power, remember that fuel number was at full power. The driver would only be pulling full power with foot to the floor. A SUV may come with a 300hp engine to get it moving good, but it only needs ~18 hp to cruise at 55mph, and a car only needs ~15 hp to go 55. So most the time this car will be getting much better milage since like any vehicle it will only take ~15 hp for it to go highway speeds (if he goes that slow). so you could multiply his milage by 4-5 times. Also the car is very areodynamic, so it very well could do better then most cars out there.
Big powerfull engines only give you the potential to waste full, they do not cause the full usage. If you had 2 identical cars, but one has twice the HP they will both get the same mileage, but people being people many would get worse mileage with the more HP version since they would use it more and accel. faster. But for a driver who knows what they are doing they would get the same either way.
Still to say this thing sucks fuel based on peak power is not correct.
Oh and if you live in the US, gas is cheap, it's one of the cheapest substances on earth. Cheaper then milk, cheaper then water depending on how you purchase water, and gives you more of a return on your investment then damn near anything. Try going 30 miles (to and from any location) in a decent time frame for less then 2 bucks, only a car with a gallon of gas can do it that cheap.
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Interesting)
which is about 75 liters / 100km. Does anybody know how much gas the Veyron holds? 80 liter tanks are very common, so it could race a mere 100 km before needing to fill up. Plus this would mean that the tank is empty after 15 minutes or so...
Anybody's got some real numbers?
Re:Random fact... (Score:5, Funny)
That's ok. If you haven't lost the cops within 15 minutes, you're screwed anyway :)
Re:Random fact... (Score:5, Informative)
Big powerfull engines only give you the potential to waste full, they do not cause the full usage.
Correct.
If you had 2 identical cars, but one has twice the HP they will both get the same mileage,
Incorrect. Fuel consumption is based on a few variables, horsepower is not one of them. It is possible that two engines with widely different horespower ratings will have the same mileage performance but that's a matter of coincidence not science. As an example consider the highly efficient 100HP/liter powerplants in the S2000, 911 and M3 compared to the 5.7 liter (and that's a key number) powerplants of American muscle cars of a generation ago (Mustang, Camaro, Corvette etc.).
In general, mileage is a combination of compression ratio, engine size, gearing, torque curve, aerodynamic and mechanical (especially tire) efficiency, valve train mechanics and a host of other factors. Horsepower is simply not one of them.
but people being people many would get worse mileage with the more HP version since they would use it more and accel. faster.
Again, generally true
But for a driver who knows what they are doing they would get the same either way.
Again no, the largest factor in mileage these days is engine capacity. To run an engine you need to maintain stoichiometric balance of the fuel to air ratio, typically between 12 and 14 parts fuel to air by mass. The larger the engine capacity the worse the fuel efficiency at equivalent rpm and compreson ratios. Some manufacturers experimented with shutting down fuel flow to cylinders at cruise in order to make the engine effectively smaller. Emission problems due to accumulation of oil in deactivated cylinders, poor engine life due to thermal stress and pumping losses made that a failed technology. The next big thing in fuel efficiency for conventional piston engines is the variable timing and lift technology now available in BMW's 4.5liter V8 and soon to come form other manufacturers. Fully variable timing and lift allow optimization of pumping losses across the rev range, as well as improved combustion efficiency for higher torque at equivalent RPM, at the price of potentially larger valve train mechanical losses. Total power may also be limited by a lower RPM limit compared to other engines in the same class, although Formula 1 powerplants, which use a different but related valve control system, can apporach 20,000 rpm.
Still to say this thing sucks fuel based on peak power is not correct.
True, but the turbocharged (= high compression ratio at high rpm) 8! liter capacity of the engine doesn't help.
Re:Random fact... (Score:5, Informative)
Mileage is partially caused by the efficiency of the motor, and partly by the efficiency of the package it's wrapped in. my 89 Corvette could easily get 30-32mpg (or 3), my PT cruiser, with it's smaller motor attached to its more efficient manual tranny, gets 26-28 depending on A/C use.
My _98_ Corvette, while it has much less drag than the 89 - has a much more advanced motor but gets 4-6mph worse mileage. Why? because they weighted the variables towards performance, rather than mileage. it's also immune to heat soak, and has fewer parts, in light of the throttle by wire system removing ASR, Cruise, and throttle mechanicals.
Several manufaturers are releasing a displacement on command feature. making the V8 a V4 by shutting down four cylinders and removing the oil that keeps the lifters filled (and hence, lifting valves.) GM, Porsche and IIRC BMW have motors announced.
The next really REALLY cool tech you'll see is a camless motor. Lotus has done a LOT of research on solenoid actuated valves. If there's no cam, there's no limitation to valve timing! You can tune the motor to optimum fuel efficiency, max low end torque or max upper end hp.
Re:Random fact... (Score:5, Informative)
Bzzt. You're _mostly_ right, but you've got a few critical things wrong.
Fair enough, let's try it point by point because I'm feeling peevish.
Mileage is partially caused by the efficiency of the motor, and partly by the efficiency of the package it's wrapped in.
I believe I mentioned aerodynamic efficiency. Mechanical efficiency, like properly inflated tires, low rolling resistance tires (which is generally synonymous with low traction) and other effects also come into play. However I believe the message I was replying to was focused on the relationship of engine horsepower to mileage so I wanted to ignore packaging issues. Furthermore the original point was that horsepower cannot be used to infer mileage, but high horsepower does imply large engine displacement, holding the redline and compression ratio constant and allowing for similar engine material and component technology. Engine displacement is a large component of fuel efficiency and the Veyron's engine is huge in terms of displacement. There is simply no way (including caveats about red lines, compression etc.) to make an 8 liter engine as fuel efficient as a 3.5 liter engine.
My _98_ Corvette, while it has much less drag than the 89
I'd be surprised if that's really true, but I don't have anything at hand to answer that definitively. Suffice it to say though, Corvette's have generally gotten larger with each generation and whatever wind tunnel work has been done on the C5 may be offset by its increase frontal area with respect to the C4.
Several manufaturers are releasing a displacement on command feature. making the V8 a V4 by shutting down four cylinders and removing the oil that keeps the lifters filled (and hence, lifting valves.) GM, Porsche and IIRC BMW have motors announced.
Two nits to pick here: first of all what you are talking about is a variable number of active cylinders, a variable displacement engine actually changes the engine displacement without changing the number of active cylinders [autoweb.com.au]. Secondly, the idea of varying the number of active cylinders for efficiency is almost as old as the piston engine itself. No one has made one work reliably yet, so I'll consider it vaporware for now. For an idea as to how difficult this is to implement in practice, consider that we've got fully elctronically automated engines, hybrid powertrains and even Miller and Wankel designs all developed in the last 4 decades with no commercially produced variable active cylinder engines for automobiles yet.
The next really REALLY cool tech you'll see is a camless motor. Lotus has done a LOT of research on solenoid actuated valves.
While I appreciate the work of the wizards at Lotus as much as the next guy, this is more blue sky technology for the Popular Science "Aurora exists" crowd. Camless engines may become a regular production item someday, but at this point someday is no less than a decade or two away, just after they put the finishing touches on their fusion reactor. On the other hand, the existence of all these technologies makes GM's claim of producing a competitive fuel cell car by 2010 pretty silly. If you were working on technology that won't be productized for 10 or 20 years would you still do it if you knew it would be obsolete?
You can tune the motor to optimum fuel efficiency, max low end torque or max upper end hp.
Horsepower is torque times angular velocity, times a proportionality factor to take care of units. Thus max upper end HP is the same as max upper end torque. In general, current cam designs necessitate a trade off in the torque curve, although that is less the case with new engines, but that's a pecularity of the engineering not a fundamental difference between power and torque.
I don't even know why I wased my time writing this, like I said, just peevish I guess.
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, you'll be happy to know engineers are part way there. BMW has an experimental system that can infinitly and quickly (300ms) adjust valve timing and lift, called "Valvetronic [bmwworld.com]". Coupled with their 'VANOS' technology, its pretty damned close to reaping the benefits of a "camless engine".
Mind you, its not perfect (yet), but it IS out on a
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Interesting)
While Saab (a GM owned company) does have a motor that changes displacement (and hence compression ratio) in the lab, there's not any planned usage for it yet. DoD has been announced for several 2005 model year Cadillacs. (Whether they make it to production or not remains to be seen, but the pre-production test drives are VERY
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, you don't know. Most technologies that look promising end up being abandoned or relegated to niches: think about Chrysler's turbine engine for passenger cars and Mazda's Wankel, respectively.
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Interesting)
GM did this on the 6 cylinder Grand Prix GTP as far back as 1995. They're doing it on Caddy's this year. Add Benz and Chrysler to that list, too. Benz has announced it, and Chrysler offers it in the 5.7L Hemi 300C.
Speaking of mileage, my 525 HP Viper, which run
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, you mean useless HP when coupled to one of those nasty slushboxes. My 7500 RPM engine making most HP above 4500 RPM til redline makes me quite happy, but I drive stick so I can actually use it.
Larry
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Informative)
Seen the power curves and redline on an i-VTEC or Toyota VVT engine these days? 8-9000 rpm redline, peak power at over 7000rpm. Much higher revving than anything they put out in the 80's, where they were preferring higher-torque lower-revving blocks.
Of course, some Japanese makers are still using the same blocks they were in the 80's (Mitsubishi and their 4G63 block most notably).
Re:Random fact... (Score:3, Informative)
Can't mention dynamic valve train management for air/fuel optimization without proper
My car is better... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that the Bugatti wouldn't be a lot of fun, but I doubt I'd have my license very long if I owned one of those.
Re:My car is better... (Score:4, Informative)
i'll take the supercar, thanks. if you can afford a million dollar car, methinks gas, insurance costs and traffic fines are of little concern. =)
Re:My car is better... (Score:4, Funny)
-1 Excessive use of reality
Re:My car is better... (Score:4, Funny)
They have to catch you before they can charge you.
"Next week... on FOX! World's Wildes-HOLY FARK, LOOK AT THAT CAR GO!"
Audio (Score:4, Interesting)
its in their history. (Score:5, Informative)
Bugatti has been renowned not only as a sports car, but a luxury sports car. It's asking the question what is the absolute best I can buy. where in ferrari for exampe is primarily a sports car creature comforts only as needed. so given the history of the car this is not unheard off. On a side note engine technology has also been pushed as far as the marine world. if i'm not mistaken the original diesign for the W16 engine was taken from one developed for speed boats.
Re:its in their history. (Score:5, Informative)
This was linked from here [kyul.net]. Pretty interesting page for an amazing set of engines.
Re:Audio (Score:3, Informative)
No. Bugatti never put a radio in one of his cars. The very idea smacks of sacrilige.
You can paint a VW blue and put a little red oval on its nose, but that doesn't make it a Bugatti.
The very idea is like my being able to buy the rights to "brand" myself Van Gough.
KFG
Automotive Vaporware (Score:5, Insightful)
The Bugatti Veyron is the last gasp of Piech's reign at VW (He had a thing for supercars and old nameplates). It's been plauged with reliablity issues and has cost VW a fortune to develop.
(Kinda sounds like Rhapsody a bit, doesn't it?)
-E2
Re:Automotive Vaporware (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting to note too that VW started out as the car maker for the "volk", ie the unwashed masses. Seems like they've lost their roots.
Re:Automotive Vaporware (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, they got Bentley in the divorce. BMW now builds Rolls-Royce motor cars. VW is now comprised of Seat, Skoda, Volkswagen, Audi, Bentley, Lamborghini, and Bugatti, not to mention their plans to collaborate with Ferrari on future Maserati models.
So there must be a car for the proletariat in there somewhere. :-) Theoretically, that's the Seat and Skoda brands, as well as the VW Lupo and Polo. Unfortunately, out of all those cars, none are available in North America except the Polo, and they're only s
Re:Automotive Vaporware (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Automotive Vaporware (Score:5, Informative)
Ferdinand Porche had been designing automobiles for some 10 years when WWI ended, and as Germany's economy collapsed he realized the need for a family type car would be developing. For the next 15 years he pushed the idea, but at the time car makers were more interested in high-dollar luxury vehicles. It wasn't until 1934 he actually got a prototype built, an aircooled flat four-powered vehicle that almost anyone would recognize as a beetle. He had been working on the plans for several years prior.
In 1933/1934 Hitler came into power and started vocalizing his plans for the autobahn and the Volksauto. When Porche's employeer exited the automobile industry in that period, Porche basically panicked because he did not want his pet project to die. He did the letter writing campaign, and eventually Hitler heard about it. Through 1934 Porche and Hitler met, and found they both had similar views about building a "people's car". In the course of several meetings they settled on the specifications of what the car would be capable of.
From there Hitler funded Porche's prototyping and research.
There was a lot of simultaneous development going on here, Hitler had read much of Henry Ford's success, and was quite a car enthusiast. Hitler's idea of the volkswagen was his own, as much as it was Porche's own.
The design and engineering, however, is almost exclusively Porche's (though there are some allegations he stole some of the body design from another designer, I don't rightly remember who that would be though).
Later on, after WWII, the US saw the value of Volkswagen to rebuilding Germany's shattered economy, and put significant effort into rebuilding the destroyed factories and getting cars built again. In some ways, the US was as instrumental in VW's success as anyone else was.
Re:Automotive Vaporware (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Automotive Vaporware (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that SUV's are a plague on our roads, but you can't blame car makers for making what people want to buy. They are in business to make money, after all.
Exactly why so many people want SUVs is a mystery to me. But then, I don't have any kids.
Got your 1000hp+ SUV right here! (Score:3, Funny)
V24 diesel engine, with four turbos. Three thousand, four hundred ponies. Yeah, you heard me: 3400hp.
Seven forward gears. 42 inch brakes. Can haul up to 380 tons of your kids crap.
Course, it only does like 42mph (loaded) while getting 0.3 mpg. Yes, at 47 feet long and 23 feet tall, its kind of hard to park. But you can rest assured that your 13 foot tires are bigger than your neighbours' Escalade! Or his entire Chevvy [cat.com] for that matter.
Yours for only 3.4 million! (S
Re:Key = Reliability (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Automotive Vaporware (Score:3, Informative)
See the
W-16? (Score:5, Funny)
Small engine, fast cars but what about airplanes? (Score:5, Interesting)
60 years ago when internal combustion propellor planes were the standard, I'm guessing that the prop plane defined the hi-tech, high powered, low weight internal combustion engine. Anyone know if that's still true?
The question from the orginal conversation was "has anyone used a wenkel rotary (it has a low weight to power ratio) in a plane?" Why/Whynot . . .
The thing about comparing cars and planes.... (Score:5, Informative)
Planes are designed to use their engine at 90% of peak most of the time.
Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane (Score:3, Informative)
Wankel engines in the past have had dependability issues. In a aeronautical sense this isn't too appealing. The old Wankel had serios issues with fuel concumption, and wearing of the plugs, and combution linings. This engine in the Wankel rx-8 is supposed to solve most if not all of these problems. so perhaps now it will be a viable alternative.
Re:Small engine, fast cars but what about airplane (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're referring to General Aviation propellor aircraft, the answer is definately no.
Chances are that the Lycoming or Continental engine in your average Cessna has changed very very little over the past 50 years. Even though intercooling and turbocharging are more common options today, they are still air-cooled, still cruise at 2500-3000rpm, and still magneto-fired. If you took a time machine, kidnapped an A&P from 1950 and put him here, he would probably die from the shock of everything being exactly the same. If not, he would begin a spree to kill all of the lawyers responsible.
By comparison, your car's engine is about 25% more fuel-efficient, can produce 50-100% more power per unit of displacement thanks to its higher speed, is liquid-cooled, is often variably-timed, will run on unleaded low-octane fuel, and is probably much quieter than an aircraft engine.
Many automotive engines, from Honda Goldwing engines to Chevy 350 cu. in. V8's and on up, are converted to air use in Experimental Aviation. They usually must be geared down to swing a decent-sized prop at a reasonable mach number (supersonic prop tips are bad). Some pilots do this because of the costs of a certified engine ($20k+, plus regular maintenance by an A&P), some do it because 100LL avgas is so expensive, some do it because they believe the end result will be more trustworthy.
As for rotaries, yes, they'll save you a bunch on weight (and size, if needed), and some people put them in experimental aircraft. They have very few moving parts which increases reliability. Unfortunately the combustion chamber in a rotary has so much more surface area (per unit of displacement) than the equivalent reciprocal engine that rotaries will probably continue to lag 15-20% behind reciprocal engines on fuel efficiency.
How... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, here in the USA, we do use very heavy passengers:)
Not the most expensive (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but according to the Guinness Book of World Records, the most valuable car in the world is the Bugatti Type 41 Royale, at $15 million. It's also not the fastest overall, since it's beaten by racecars and the like.
Re:Not the most expensive (Score:2)
Re:Not the most expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
An expensive car is one that you need a lot of money to order. A valuable car is one that even if you have the money you probably can't get because there aren't any on the market.
Kinda like the Hope Diamond. You just can't have it. Period. It's not for sale.
When cars like this do go on the market they are typically sold at auction, which is where Guiness gets that price for the Royale (which is a particular Royale, not the Royale in gene
Most horsepower? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not sure if the Bugatti really does have "the most horsepower." Maybe most for a production car.
Re:Most horsepower? (Score:3, Interesting)
0-60 in 3 seconds! (Score:2)
So obvious... (Score:5, Funny)
The answer for most people is: you don't. [wreckedexotics.com]
Shop or compare prices (Score:5, Funny)
It doesn't come up with too many matches, though.
Go fast cheap (Score:2, Informative)
Most of the 1000cc sportbikes on the market today will do a nice 140+ mph quarter mile, top out at 180+ mph, and corner better than anything short of an indy car for around $10k.
Or, if insist on stupidly ridiculous 250 mph speeds, you could still get one of these [motorcyclecity.com] and save three quarters of a million dollars.
News flash: (Score:4, Informative)
250 mph top speed is retarded because the only places you can really reach such a speed are on a banked oval track. Overlooking the fact that the veyron is a heavy barge of a car and has mediocre street tires... Even the fastest of close wheeled race cars (many of which have comparable horsepower, much stickier tires, far less weight and better aerodynamics) are hard pressed to break 200mph even on tracks with enormous straight sections. Mostly they keep to speeds below 150 because of having to constantly brake for curves. It would be a much lower speed if they had street tires instead of racing tires. 250mph is a useless speed until tire compounds and braking systems have advanced a VERY long way. The trick is less in getting to 250mph than it is in avoiding things going slower.
As for aerodynamics, it isnt very hard to keep the car planted, even without fancy computer desgined undercar tunnels. There are tons of books on desgning and testing over and underbody aerodymics- much of this knowledge has been floating around for decades.
As for 1000+ hp, there are a ton of big block v8s making that power all over this country. Some making significantly more. A few even do it on pump gas.
0-60 in 3 seconds for $1m or $30,000? (Score:3, Interesting)
They're powered by two bike engines working together to give a power to weight ratio of 600BHP per tonne, and the amazing part is they only cost around 16,000 although some assembly is required. Top speed isn't close to 250+mph, but do you know anywhere where you could get to that speed (UK driver speaking here!)? These certainly win the 'bang-for-buck' award here, and are available to joe avaerage...
Better way (Score:5, Funny)
Ummm (Score:3, Informative)
I am not a troll, but I'm going to venture and say, all cars. High-priced Italian sportscars are designed to work for about 2-3 years and then fall apart. Their parts are ridiculously expense (I've read how some vehicles oil changes alone are hundreds of dollars.)
Cars like the Veyron are made to be purchased by an elite few who will drive them on rare occasions and keep them in climate controlled garages the rest of the time.
If you've got nothing better to spend your money on, buy out the RIAA.
What's the point? (Score:3, Interesting)
HowStuffWorks is about to learn one more thing... (Score:5, Funny)
UltraSuperMegaCars (Score:3, Informative)
Are there any cars out there better than this?
This may or may not be the best car available. However, it is surprising how much competition the Veyron has:
There are more cars in this class, but I can't remember them off the top of my head.
I don't know how the market can support all of these $250k+ cars. How many people out there can really afford these? Wish I was one of them
Luxury My Ass (Score:4, Funny)
Most of the criticisms... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You can only drive 60(75,85)mph anyway, what a waste"
"The small-penised guys who buy this will kill themselves in 15 minutes"
"How pointless, it only gets 3mpg!"
etc, etc, etc.
Hmmmm, where do I begin. The people who are in the market to buy this automobile are not going to drive it every day. In fact, they will probably transport it in its own trailer if they take it to any concours, etc.
The main thing is, you're viewing this as a car. It isn't. It's a piece of kinetic, semi-functional sculpture. The collectors will buy this, then put it in their lovely 30,000sq.ft. showroom, and maybe take it around the block once in a while to get a little sun.
There are people with vast amounts of money who appreciate exceptional feats of engineering and design. Jay Leno is one. The Sultan of Brunai is another.
As far as the driving like assholes, that only happens with idiot rockstars and the like who just got a million dollar paycheck. The vast majority of the people driving this car will be doctors, investment bankers and the like. These guys drive carefully.
I live in Carmel, CA. We have the Concours d'Elegance here at Pebble Beach every year, and countless other similar events at nearby Laguna Seca. In addition, there are enough Ferraris and the like around here normally that I usually see 2-3 on the way to work every day. Hell, Porsches are common as VW beetles around here. I've never seen any of the more exotic cars driven less than super-carefully.
Yeah, it's a lot of money, but it costs much less then some of the jewelry worn at the Oscars... and this is much cooler then some bling-bling necklace.
-m
Re:Most of the criticisms... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Most of the criticisms... (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean like Bill Gates was doing when he got arrested for reckless driving? [mugshots.org]
Hmmmm, where do I begin. The people who are in the market to buy this automobile are not going to drive it every day. In fact, they will probably transport it in its own tra
Are there any cars better than this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would rather have this instead
http://www.moller.com/.
Re:Are there any cars better than this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh yeah, 95 km/h == safe, 105 km/h == menace to society. Plenty of people get killed around town at 50 km/h. Plenty of people get killed and broken at 70 km/h. It's not speed that kills, it's bad driving/lack of attention/lack of maintenance. But it's easier to blame speed than it is to address the 80% of the driving population who can bearly keep it on the road.
Tickets are mostly about revenu
Shop or Compare Prices (Score:3, Funny)
'We couldn't find any product matches on Shopping.com for "the Bugatti Veyron"'
Damn!
Minor fault (Score:3, Funny)
But how do the breaks work?
better cars (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, just about any car on the road, for most commonly used definitions of "better". For example, a Civic is cheaper to buy, cheaper to insure, cheaper to maintain, easier to drive, quieter, rides better, more comfortable, has more cargo space, and has better gas mileage.
It's the car equivalent of Duke Nukem Forever (Score:3, Insightful)
No, wait. . . now!
No, really, now! And it will have a jillion horsepower and go a bazillion miles an hour!
As to the question of "are there better cars out there?" the answer is yes: any one of them you can actually drive.
Overrated (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's see, the Veyron is cool and fast, but everything in the car is pretty common and didn't require any special innovation to achieve. The engine? Just two corporate VW DOHC V8s bolted together. And turbos are not exactly new technology, and putting 4 of them in one place doesn't get you any farther. Wow - 4 valves per cyclinder, did NASA design this monster!?! Ohhhh, dry sump lubication, fairly rare due to cost on production vehicles, but in use for plenty long. Continuously variable cam timing, I believe Honda was putting this on Civics about 20 years ago. And obviously seven gears are seven times more advanced than four gears. Dual clutch systems were invented decades ago, just never worked so well due to reliability. F1 style paddle shifting - Ferrari had it first. All wheeel drive - Jeep perhaps? Many high end cars have unique tires, all that means is they're expensive, not innovative, and have dimensions too ridiculous for the manufacturers to build in volume. Carbon fiber chasis also common on several high enders.
The Veyron is just a really expensive combination of all the top technologies available in the market at the moment, I see nothing new here. Of course, that could just be the envy talking.
Article in error re: F1 cars (Score:5, Informative)
See FIA 2004 Formula One Technical Regulations sections 13.2 and 13.3 for details.
Bugatti museum (Score:3, Interesting)
No actual photos? (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be nice if a car like this actually existed. Too bad they don't mention that minor detail anywhere in the article.
Did anyone else notice that there are no real photos of this car? Any pics I could find were all just nice computer-generated renderings. My advice: don't place your order for this car just yet.
Re:What? (Score:2, Funny)
Modding your 1982 Pinto doesn't count.
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Funny)
Nope... French tanks are the ones with enormous firepower, great performance, and terrific soldiers inside them, but which are unfortunately in entirely the wrong location. British tanks are the ones the Americans give the joke IFF circuits to. German tanks are the ones we hope like hell they never decide to use again.
It's Italian tanks that have the high reverse performance.
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Interesting)
A swift, powerful, costly masterpiece of technology. The most reliable defence against what was then regarded as the main threat for France and Western Europe: a Soviet invasion.
Unfortunately the production began two years after the Berlin Wall fell.
Now the few Leclerc tanks that have actually been produced and sold gather dust in French territories or in the Arab emirates.
Typical French: "Toujours en retard d'une guerre" (always one w
Re:Further questions... (Score:2, Funny)
KFG
Re:Further questions... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's kinda cool though... (Score:2)
It would be interesting putting this engine into a truck or some working vehicle...but there are probably more efficient engines out there, like a diesel?
Interesting read though.
Re:250MPH? (Score:4, Insightful)
It has wings - just upside down - for the downforce needed to make it stable. From TFA:
But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 lbs. of extra metal? Serious question. Is downforce from the spoiler(wing) that much better than extra metal?
Extra Metal (Score:4, Interesting)
But wouldn't it have been easier to just add 398 lbs. of extra metal? Serious question. Is downforce from the spoiler(wing) that much better than extra metal?
Downforce has weight but not mass, so you don't need to expend horsepower accelerating it.
Re:Mass vs aero (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mass vs aero (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mass vs aero (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:250MPH? (Score:5, Informative)
Adding downforce increases the car's "weight" for purposes of calculating the grip of the tires on the road, but doesnt increase the mass of the car that they have to change the direction of.
This is why the "ideal" race car is a stick figure formula 1 type car with a giant engine and huge wings. The downforce keeps the car stuck on the road with the force of many times its weight, but since the car is so light it can change direction with mind boggling speed. This is why formula one cars can develop over 5gs of sideways acceleration. The powerful engine helps to generate speed which in turn increases downforce. The cars actually grip more the faster they go.
sheesh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:250MPH? (Score:3, Informative)
At speeds approaching 200mph, a modern F1 car generates 2100kg of downforce. enough to stick it to the ceiling 3 times over.
It's a common misconception that the ground effect er
how often you wanna rebuild it? (Score:3, Insightful)