Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Wednesday July 30, 2014
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC General > News & Rumors > Non-Subaru News & Rumors

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-04-2013, 02:38 PM   #76
E. Nick
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 8489
Join Date: Jul 2001
Chapter/Region: BAIC
Location: Atherton, CA
Vehicle:
1978 Plymouth Volare
Maroon / White Vinyl

Default

This thing wouldn't be in my garage unless it was 100 grand.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
E. Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 11:19 AM   #77
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
** Ring Time of
7:43.5

Default

called it

Quote:


Bugatti dropped an inconclusive teaser photo on its Facebook page earlier today which could represent the rumored Super Veyron.
It was only yesterday when we found out the Veyron Super Sport has lost its title for the world's fastest production car. Now, Bugatti is probably doing some damage control by releasing a teaser photo before an online reveal of a new model in the next few days.
This photo was posted on the company's official Facebook account with the caption "The stage is set. It's almost time for us to share the latest example of exceptional Bugatti performance, simply keep a close eye on Facebook over the next few days”.
If we were to speculate, we are dealing with the Super Veyron scheduled for a public unveiling in September at Frankfurt Motor Show. Reports have indicated it will be powered by an uprated W16 quad-turbo 8.0- or 9.6-liter engine producing 1,600 HP (1,177 kW). Chief vehicle engineer Jens Schulenburg confirmed Bugatti is considering carbon fiber wheels and a hybrid setup.
It will also go on a 249 kg (550 lbs) diet as it's rumored to feature more carbon fiber parts, enabling the range-topping Veyron to tip the scales at 1,600 kg (3,527 lbs).
The added horsepower and lower weight combo should enable the Super Veyron reach 62 mph (100 km/h) in an amazing 1.8 seconds, en route to an equally impressive top speed of 288 mph (463 km/h).
The Bugatti Super Veyron is expected to cost more than 2.5M USD (1.5M GBP or 1.9M EUR) and will probably be available in a very limited edition.


http://www.worldcarfans.com/11304085...-veyron-teased
White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 11:35 AM   #78
SCRAPPYDO
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 873
Join Date: Feb 2000
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Just outside of Houston TX
Vehicle:
2013 F150 King Ranch
Datsun 71 240Z & 68 2000

Default

I just love how stupid things get when people obsess over one single metric.
SCRAPPYDO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 11:36 AM   #79
jlundy11
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 324709
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Reno, NV
Vehicle:
2012 WRX Sedan
SWP

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White out View Post
called it
HP to weight ratio is roughly only even with the GT now. It'll be a nicer car, I'm not arguing that. But speed wise... I don't see it going faster than the GT on the same amount of runway.
jlundy11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 12:03 PM   #80
aschen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:
2007 tiny car
striped

Default

areodynamics are much better thought which is very important for these stupid speeds. Not I use the word stupid in its strict denotation, ie dumb, lacking intelligence
aschen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 05:44 PM   #81
GDB FAN
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 105814
Join Date: Jan 2006
Chapter/Region: NWIC
Vehicle:
two V8's..
'murica

Default

A car photo of no car. "Let's say something but nothing at all. Oh that's deep."

Did they ever say why the limiter was set so damn high in the first place?
GDB FAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 06:53 PM   #82
Skunkers
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 115480
Join Date: May 2006
Location: St. Pete, FL
Vehicle:
2002 RSX-S
Desert Silver

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SCRAPPYDO View Post
I just love how stupid things get when people obsess over one single metric.
I don't even like the Veyron (or the Venom GT). 288 though? Holy ****.

In another decade, will someone break 300mph? Good grief.
Skunkers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 10:11 PM   #83
4wdwrx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 72042
Join Date: Oct 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Sunshine
Vehicle:
2002 WRX impreza
WRB "Blue Mammoth"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skunkers View Post
I don't even like the Veyron (or the Venom GT). 288 though? Holy ****.

In another decade, will someone break 300mph? Good grief.
I'm waiting for that day when we hit the 300mph mark in a production car.

Instead of more and more power, crazy light weight, why not new cutting technology. I mean someone needs to figure out how to hover or levitate, antigravity.
4wdwrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2013, 10:32 PM   #84
The Duke
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 264877
Join Date: Nov 2010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skunkers View Post
I don't even like the Veyron (or the Venom GT). 288 though? Holy ****.

In another decade, will someone break 300mph? Good grief.
Give it 10 years and we'll eclipse it.
The Duke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 01:00 AM   #85
Skylab
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 4263
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, Ca
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4wdwrx View Post
I'm waiting for that day when we hit the 300mph mark in a production car.

Instead of more and more power, crazy light weight, why not new cutting technology. I mean someone needs to figure out how to hover or levitate, antigravity.

And crazy amounts of downforce to keep the car planted. Any breath of side wind and you'd be flying the not-so-friendly skies in a crazy lightweight car at 300mph.
Skylab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 12:18 PM   #86
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4wdwrx View Post
I'm waiting for that day when we hit the 300mph mark in a production car.

Instead of more and more power, crazy light weight, why not new cutting technology. I mean someone needs to figure out how to hover or levitate, antigravity.
This brings up a valid point, and one that has been in the back of my mind.

For the money that these 200+ mph supercars cost anymore... the most recent crop at the Geneva auto show were 1-4 million dollars...

Why not buy a PLANE?

Planes have much less problem going fast, and if something goes wrong, there is a slim chance that the circumstances might allow you to glide down.

Something going wrong in a car at that speed... you become a rolling ball of twisted metal, glass, plastic, and bloody goo with even more certainty than an aircraft malfunction causing a plane crash.

If I had millions to spend on toys... I would be looking for a plane design for performance flying, using modern Very Light Jet technology.

Flying old prop, and maybe even early jet fighters is very cool, don't get me wrong... but there seems to be very little in the way of new-technology in pilot-centered performance aircraft for civilian pilots. It seems to be focused on bringing passengers along, and getting to distant locations, which is a good thing, too, but a different sort of aircraft.

Trying to make a car fly (all sorts of futuristic "flying car" predictions for the last half century), or trying to make a car travel at speeds that are extremely dangerous on the obstacle-rich ground, seems like it would have diminishing returns.

Just get an actual plane.
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 12:58 PM   #87
blubaru703
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 71380
Join Date: Sep 2004
Chapter/Region: International
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post
This brings up a valid point, and one that has been in the back of my mind.

For the money that these 200+ mph supercars cost anymore... the most recent crop at the Geneva auto show were 1-4 million dollars...

Why not buy a PLANE?

Planes have much less problem going fast, and if something goes wrong, there is a slim chance that the circumstances might allow you to glide down.

Something going wrong in a car at that speed... you become a rolling ball of twisted metal, glass, plastic, and bloody goo with even more certainty than an aircraft malfunction causing a plane crash.

If I had millions to spend on toys... I would be looking for a plane design for performance flying, using modern Very Light Jet technology.

Flying old prop, and maybe even early jet fighters is very cool, don't get me wrong... but there seems to be very little in the way of new-technology in pilot-centered performance aircraft for civilian pilots. It seems to be focused on bringing passengers along, and getting to distant locations, which is a good thing, too, but a different sort of aircraft.

Trying to make a car fly (all sorts of futuristic "flying car" predictions for the last half century), or trying to make a car travel at speeds that are extremely dangerous on the obstacle-rich ground, seems like it would have diminishing returns.

Just get an actual plane.
Because a certain someone on top gear proved that a Veyron was faster than a plane
blubaru703 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:20 PM   #88
4wdwrx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 72042
Join Date: Oct 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Sunshine
Vehicle:
2002 WRX impreza
WRB "Blue Mammoth"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post
This brings up a valid point, and one that has been in the back of my mind.

For the money that these 200+ mph supercars cost anymore... the most recent crop at the Geneva auto show were 1-4 million dollars...

Why not buy a PLANE?

Planes have much less problem going fast, and if something goes wrong, there is a slim chance that the circumstances might allow you to glide down.

Something going wrong in a car at that speed... you become a rolling ball of twisted metal, glass, plastic, and bloody goo with even more certainty than an aircraft malfunction causing a plane crash.

If I had millions to spend on toys... I would be looking for a plane design for performance flying, using modern Very Light Jet technology.

Flying old prop, and maybe even early jet fighters is very cool, don't get me wrong... but there seems to be very little in the way of new-technology in pilot-centered performance aircraft for civilian pilots. It seems to be focused on bringing passengers along, and getting to distant locations, which is a good thing, too, but a different sort of aircraft.

Trying to make a car fly (all sorts of futuristic "flying car" predictions for the last half century), or trying to make a car travel at speeds that are extremely dangerous on the obstacle-rich ground, seems like it would have diminishing returns.

Just get an actual plane.
I'm not talking about actually flying. The airplane has been invented long time ago. I'm talking about hover/levitate a few foot substituting for tires (not a hovercraft but similar to ones in the new Total Recall).

This would remove a lot of friction. Definitely an antigravitation device would be a must. traditional jet engines used in vertical take off use too much energy and difficult to maintain flight.

This is crazy stuff i'm talking about and would need serious break through research in magnetism, electromagnetism (who knows, someone might already be researching this)
4wdwrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:25 PM   #89
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

C'mon...

That was a Cessna 182.

I am talking about JETS.

For the money put into a Veyron or a LaFerrari, or a Mac P1... You should be able to get something better than a Cessna 182 prop-driven air-taxi.

Why is it that Viperjet, ATG Javelin, Eclipse 400, and others don't succeed?
(FAA over-regulation probably makes EPA/NHTSA look like amateur-hour. Prudent regulation is one thing... getting insanely micromanaged is another.)

Otherwise, there was the CirrusJet... but evidently they were bought by the government of China two years ago.

I don't get how small scale jet aviation is so much more problematic than selling million dollar cars, that can't even approach their top speeds in 99.99% of the circumstances that they are ever used in.



I would rather have a 2 or 4 seat very light jet, and a merely nice car, than a million-plus dollar car that is good for something that isn't even readily attempted without major support considerations.
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 02:34 PM   #90
HipToBeSquare
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 119958
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: (IA) flyover cornfield country
Vehicle:
1992 SVX LS-L

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4wdwrx View Post
I'm not talking about actually flying. The airplane has been invented long time ago. I'm talking about hover/levitate a few foot substituting for tires (not a hovercraft but similar to ones in the new Total Recall).

This would remove a lot of friction. Definitely an antigravitation device would be a must. traditional jet engines used in vertical take off use too much energy and difficult to maintain flight.

This is crazy stuff i'm talking about and would need serious break through research in magnetism, electromagnetism (who knows, someone might already be researching this)
Hovering is standing still.

You are talking about levitation while at speed, which is a form of flying.

Whether you do that with power... which is likely insanely demanding, power-wise to constantly counteract gravity.

And merely levitating just above a surface while traveling at high speed does not offer much assurance from obstacles that are common along the ground.

Not only that, but yaw control authority to turn is reduced, and roll would be a problem, unless the levitation height is higher that the vehicle's maximum width. Aircraft (which anything suspended above the ground could be considered a form of aircraft, without ground contact) don't yaw on a dime.

Pitch variation would also be problematic, as nose-down would likely create an aerodynamic force that would force the vehicle to nose into the ground, and nose-up pitch would likely produce so much lift, that the vehicle would flip end over end, like a Lemans Prototype Racer on a bad day.

Ekranoplans are ground-effect flyers, but even they require wings, and are usually intended to cross bodies of water, where there aren't man-made and natural landmark obstacles.

Ground contact and friction are what produce the control authority that a car has.

Without it, a hovercraft usually has to maintain lower speeds, and higher speed aircraft have to maintain altitude above obstacles on the ground.
HipToBeSquare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2013, 04:03 PM   #91
aschen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:
2007 tiny car
striped

Default

10$ says at least 50% of veyron owners have access to private buisness jet travel
aschen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 09:38 AM   #92
4wdwrx
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 72042
Join Date: Oct 2004
Chapter/Region: South East
Location: Sunshine
Vehicle:
2002 WRX impreza
WRB "Blue Mammoth"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post
Hovering is standing still.

You are talking about levitation while at speed, which is a form of flying.

Whether you do that with power... which is likely insanely demanding, power-wise to constantly counteract gravity.

And merely levitating just above a surface while traveling at high speed does not offer much assurance from obstacles that are common along the ground.

Not only that, but yaw control authority to turn is reduced, and roll would be a problem, unless the levitation height is higher that the vehicle's maximum width. Aircraft (which anything suspended above the ground could be considered a form of aircraft, without ground contact) don't yaw on a dime.

Pitch variation would also be problematic, as nose-down would likely create an aerodynamic force that would force the vehicle to nose into the ground, and nose-up pitch would likely produce so much lift, that the vehicle would flip end over end, like a Lemans Prototype Racer on a bad day.

Ekranoplans are ground-effect flyers, but even they require wings, and are usually intended to cross bodies of water, where there aren't man-made and natural landmark obstacles.

Ground contact and friction are what produce the control authority that a car has.

Without it, a hovercraft usually has to maintain lower speeds, and higher speed aircraft have to maintain altitude above obstacles on the ground.
I agree with you, I understand all those issues. But you are just thinking current technology-- current practical knowledge.

I am thinking about ways to manipulate the earths magnetic force and redirecting the energy. That energy can then be used for acceleration and deceleration. Obstacles is not a problem, it can be identified using sensors.

The earth has such a strong force, I refuse to believe we cannot control this phenomenon.
4wdwrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 09:55 AM   #93
53x12
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 206332
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: In a tent
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aschen View Post
10$ says at least 50% of veyron owners have access to private buisness jet travel
At least 50%? Could have said at least 100%.


Could always get a Bugatti plane to keep in your garage.



Had an estimated top speed of 550 mph.

Last edited by 53x12; 04-10-2013 at 10:03 AM.
53x12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 01:59 PM   #94
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
** Ring Time of
7:43.5

Default

Veyron's usually go to people who have many other vehicles (land, sea, air).

White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2013, 02:56 PM   #95
chanomatik
NASIOC Supporter
 
Member#: 159474
Join Date: Sep 2007
Chapter/Region: AKIC
Location: Anchorage (...for now...)
Vehicle:
2013 BRZ Ltd 6MT CBS
SNOSLO

Default

It takes far less qualifications to drive a car. Basically: It's easier to drive a fast car fast (and relatively more exciting) than it is to qualify to fly a plane if flying isn't one's true passion.

I'd just jump straight to a rocket-powered spacecraft, personally. *shrug*

Quote:
Originally Posted by HipToBeSquare View Post
C'mon...

That was a Cessna 182.

I am talking about JETS.

For the money put into a Veyron or a LaFerrari, or a Mac P1... You should be able to get something better than a Cessna 182 prop-driven air-taxi.

Why is it that Viperjet, ATG Javelin, Eclipse 400, and others don't succeed?
(FAA over-regulation probably makes EPA/NHTSA look like amateur-hour. Prudent regulation is one thing... getting insanely micromanaged is another.)

Otherwise, there was the CirrusJet... but evidently they were bought by the government of China two years ago.

I don't get how small scale jet aviation is so much more problematic than selling million dollar cars, that can't even approach their top speeds in 99.99% of the circumstances that they are ever used in.

I would rather have a 2 or 4 seat very light jet, and a merely nice car, than a million-plus dollar car that is good for something that isn't even readily attempted without major support considerations.
chanomatik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 12:00 PM   #96
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
** Ring Time of
7:43.5

Default

White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 01:51 PM   #97
torquemada
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 128484
Join Date: Oct 2006
Chapter/Region: International
Location: Germany
Vehicle:
2006 EDM WRX STI
WRB

Default

torquemada is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 05:17 PM   #98
aschen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region: TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:
2007 tiny car
striped

Default

Give me a freaking break with the jfk and american flag sentimental bs.

On the other hand, that car is accelerating at .7 g at 170 mph which is beyond craycray.
aschen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2014, 07:24 PM   #99
White out
Scooby Guru
 
Member#: 46277
Join Date: Oct 2003
Chapter/Region: SCIC
Location: Michigan
Vehicle:
** Ring Time of
7:43.5

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aschen View Post
Give me a freaking break with the jfk and american flag sentimental bs.

On the other hand, that car is accelerating at .7 g at 170 mph which is beyond craycray.
I don't like that car, but hot damn.
White out is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2014 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.