Airbag Legislation Blowout Could Drive Bugatti Out Of Business

[The_Canuck]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14364898/ Hmm well i never liked 'em anyways :D

[Quiggs]

Good riddance.

[coolieman1220]

in a car like that, if u get into an accidnet, airbags won't save ur life, you'd wanna kill yourself for crashing it or the person who hit you and they're soo strong in high impact u live or die. airbags do u nothing

[Vindesh17]

All that means is that there will be more Veyrons in the Middle East and Europe instead of america.

[NSXType-R]

Well it's nothing new for Buggati anyway...

They've been in and out of business for as long as I can remember.

[Equinox]

well, if they do go out of business it will be no loss!

[Zytek_Fan]

If it happens I won't be getting a Spyker in the US.

Too bad I'll be living in England :D

[NSXType-R]

If Buggati is going out of business that means that it's parts would be meaningless or worthless...

That means I'm getting myself a W-16 coffee table!

[carsnut]

haha nice idea. so the veyron will be just like the EB110. its going out of business.

[Bob]

It's unfair to grant an exeption to ferrari and not everyone else, don't you think?

[KonaGreen]

Somebody call the Waahhmbulance.http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/rolleye/rolleye0014.gif

[blackcat77]

If a company that charges over a million dollars a car is going to go broke over airbags, somebody is messing with the books, BIG TIME!

[NuclearCrap]

It's unfair to grant an exeption to ferrari and not everyone else, don't you think?

Agree, people crash Ferraris more than other supercars these days.

[Gtek-i]

This would be a perfect time for Bugatti to build more dealerships worldwide AND to start building that $60,000 Bugatti.

[F1_Master]

It'll pass over just like the F430 fiasco because some woman wasn't paying attention.

[blingbling]

That article was so incredibly vague. Please stop over-reacting before you guys get the whole story please.

[Revolution]

Just don't sell supercars in the US, problem solved! :p

[Gtek-i]

lol^^^:p

[Coventrysucks]

they're soo strong in high impact u live or die. airbags do u nothing

Even at 50mph?

That's quite stupid.

Not as stupid as


The US rules require "smart" airbags that can distinguish between adult and child passengers without seatbelts on and adjust airbag inflation for small drivers sitting further forward than is normal, to avoid injuries from the airbags themselves in a crash.

Airbags are an Secondary Restraint System (it even says so on the damn things; "SRS Airbag"), not a Primary Restraint System as US legislation seems to think.

Trying to make them into a PRS is such a stupid idea, I can't even believe it is true.

Clearly the people in charge have heard a rumour that "airbags save lives" and therefore have altered their legislation to suit, rather than understanding what an airbag is, or what it does, or any aspect of car safety.

[MrKipling]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt in a car: you deserve to be very badly injured.

[drakkie]

Even at 50mph?

That's quite stupid.

Not as stupid as



Airbags are an Secondary Restraint System (it even says so on the damn things; "SRS Airbag"), not a Primary Restraint System as US legislation seems to think.

Trying to make them into a PRS is such a stupid idea, I can't even believe it is true.

Clearly the people in charge have heard a rumour that "airbags save lives" and therefore have altered their legislation to suit, rather than understanding what an airbag is, or what it does, or any aspect of car safety.

Most of the US legislation doesnt make sense :) Get used to it :)

[2ndclasscitizen]

Surely any injury you suffer from an airbag (lacerations, broken nose or cheekbones, burns) are not as bad as belting your head straight on the wheel or dash? Just another case of removing personal responsibilty

[IBrake4Rainbows]

As far as I'm concerned, if you're stupid enough not to wear a seatbelt in a car: you deserve to be very badly injured.

Preach.

[Revolution]

Seriously though, how many young children will be involved in a front on accident inside a Veyron?

[Coventrysucks]

Surely any injury you suffer from an airbag (lacerations, broken nose or cheekbones, burns) are not as bad as belting your head straight on the wheel or dash? Just another case of removing personal responsibilty

That is precisely why they are an "SRS".

They are not there so that you can crash at 100mph and hop out of the wreckage unscathed.

They are there to, hopefully, prevent you from being pulled out of the wreckage dead.

People don't seem to be able to understand that thinking, they think it is some sort of magic device, along with ABS/ESP/etc., which magically prevent crashes...

The only way to improve safety on the roads is to keep drivers off them.

[NSXType-R]

Could someone give me some information on the Ferrari F430 thing with the woman? What happened there? I seemed to have missed it. Thanks.

[LandQuail]

in a car like that, if u get into an accidnet, airbags won't save ur life, you'd wanna kill yourself for crashing it or the person who hit you and they're soo strong in high impact u live or die. airbags do u nothing

Pretty stupid, but even a stopped clock's gotta be right sometime. We've got a family of Coolies down here in Arkansas. They're pretty dense too...

If you're hooked into a four-point harness, and I'm talking strapped in pretty damn good (no reaching over and grabbing your passenger's crotch or ****ing with the bass levels on the hi-fi) then you don't need an airbag. There are laws of physics at work that I'm probably not totally qualified to explain any further than the old "car stops, you don't" rundown, and I shouldn't have to, unless I'm talking to someone who gained what they believe is a working knowledge of newtonian physics as are applicable to a car crash by watching 3-Fast 3-Furious in slo-mo. (deep breath.)

But this Coolie is right, in his Coolie way, by figuring the airbags in question aren't going 2 do u no good in a Veyron.

At the giddy heights the headline took us to by invoking the Veyron, the writer lost a big part of his point, ITQHO. It mentions further down that regular human car makers like Lotus are worried. Sure, nobody is going to pick their kid up from day school and plop them into the child seat strapped to their Veyron, but they might in their Elise... and that means that a smart airbag couldn't be a totally bad idea, at least to the deep thinkers installed in the world's transportation governing bodies. (do Elises even have a passenger airbag? They shouldn't, I know, but with the way things are headed...)

This is an alarming piece of legislation, but I'm sure it won't be the death-toll of small-scale sportscar manufacurers. I mean, we're not talking about making it necessary for sportscars to get 30 mpg or carry five people; this is just an update to the airbag system, and that's not going to involve more than fitting a pressure switch to the seat somewhere and importing selective-force airbags from Kia, or the like (like everybody else already seems to have done.)

It's gonna suck, but it can't cost more than fitting ABS and stability control, and surely not as much as the handling software and trick dampers Ferrari and Lamborghini use.

What's more, I'd like to know how much the new airbags cost compared to the silver "super-duper fast" key every Veyron comes with. Point I'm struggling to make is, that this isn't as big a deal, in this Quail's humble opinion, as the manufacturers are making it out to be.

Ah, eventually our cars will be padded like the cells in a lunatic asylum, I guess. And they'll drive themselves. But that day's not here yet.
Squawk.

[Jack_Bauer]

This is an alarming piece of legislation, but I'm sure it won't be the death-toll of small-scale sportscar manufacurers. I mean, we're not talking about making it necessary for sportscars to get 30 mpg or carry five people; this is just an update to the airbag system, and that's not going to involve more than fitting a pressure switch to the seat somewhere and importing selective-force airbags from Kia, or the like (like everybody else already seems to have done.)

It's gonna suck, but it can't cost more than fitting ABS and stability control, and surely not as much as the handling software and trick dampers Ferrari and Lamborghini use.

Did you read the article? It's not the cost of the actual fitting of a new airbag that is the problem, it is the costs involved in passing the required safety tests that are prohibitive. It could require up to 120 crash tests to validate the design. 120 wrecked Veyrons at $1million a piece does not a happy accountant make. The same is true for other low volume manufacturers. The cost of trashing 120 cars may be enough to encourage them to bail out of the US market altogether if they don't recieve an exemption.

[deffenbaugh03]

Airbags are an Secondary Restraint System (it even says so on the damn things; "SRS Airbag"), not a Primary Restraint System as US legislation seems to think.

Trying to make them into a PRS is such a stupid idea, I can't even believe it is true.

SRS stands for Supplemental Restraint System. SRS is on airbags and seatbelts. There designed to work together and supplement each other.

[LandQuail]

Did you read the article? It's not the cost of the actual fitting of a new airbag that is the problem, it is the costs involved in passing the required safety tests that are prohibitive. It could require up to 120 crash tests to validate the design. 120 wrecked Veyrons at $1million a piece does not a happy accountant make. The same is true for other low volume manufacturers. The cost of trashing 120 cars may be enough to encourage them to bail out of the US market altogether if they don't recieve an exemption.

I skimmed it...

I thought that was referring to the existing crash-safety laws, and dismissed the number as maybe one of those impossilble worst-case things that "up to" numbers usually fall into. I knew manufacturers had to crash quite a few cars to get them homologated, but 120 is ridiculous. I don't know if there are even that many way to crash into something. ****.

But after reading the article again, I'm still not sure that "120 crash tests" means writing off 120 cars. Seems like that clashes with the "10 percent increase in price." They're only planning to sell 150 in America, according to the article.

An example of poor editing and writing. The big news is the number of crash tests, which the author barely brushed with one quote from "VW." Maybe that was an 83 Squareback he was interviewing. That headline confuses dumb hillbillies like me.

[QuattroMan]

Bugatti out of business???!!! bunch a bull-sh!t if you ask me!

[Ouz]

haha nice idea. so the veyron will be just like the EB110. its going out of business.
I don't know the story, what happened to the 110?

[Jack_Bauer]

I don't know the story, what happened to the 110?
Bugatti Automobili SpA (the second incarnation of the Bugatti firm) went bankrupt in 1995. Basically the EB110 was the right car at the wrong time. It was hugely sophisticated and advanced for its time, a real technological marvel. However in the early nineties there was a widespread economic recession which meant people weren't really interested in uber-expensive luxury supercars, hence the tragic sales flops of the EB110, XJ220 and McLaren F1 et al. The EB110 was Bugatti's only car at the time and they were busy ploughing shedloads of money into developing other concepts and buying out Lotus which didn't really help their plight.

The EB110 was a great car but was a victim of unfortunate circumstances and bad management by the Bugatti management. :rolleyes:

[KonaGreen]

Hey, LandQuail. Just what do you mean by "Coolie"

[P4g4nite]

A Veyron sells for millions less than it cost to build and develop.

Selling less Veyrons will not put Bugatti out of business. Bugatti is only a name, VW is the business.

[The_Canuck]

A Veyron sells for millions less than it cost to build and develop.

Selling less Veyrons will not put Bugatti out of business. Bugatti is only a name, VW is the business.
So then why do you think Oldsmobile is gone? Cause it wasn't profitable anymore and VW will scrap Buggati if they become non profitable.

[P4g4nite]

_____

So then why do you think Oldsmobile is gone? Cause it wasn't profitable anymore and VW will scrap Buggati if they become non profitable.
No.

[LandQuail]

Hey, LandQuail. Just what do you mean by "Coolie"

The guy's name I was responding to was "coolie man" or some such. We've got a family of Coolies near where I grew up in Arkansas that have only been walking upright for the last six generations. None of them can read or write, but they're hard workers, and all as big as bull moose(s).

The coolie guy on this thread said that the Bugatti "is built so solid that in a crash you either live or die; an airbag won't help you."

Just thought the two might be related.

[LandQuail]

So then why do you think Oldsmobile is gone? Cause it wasn't profitable anymore and VW will scrap Buggati if they become non profitable.

Wouldn't be the first time.

They need to develop a cash cow, and quick. There's been talk of a Bugatti that normal humans can aspire to someday afford, based on less exotic mechanicals from the VW A.G. parts bin. Think more luxurious Gallardo with Veyron Jr. neo-art-deco styling. Unless I'm wrong.

[The_Canuck]

_____

No.
Yes..

[F1_Master]

Bugatti Automobili SpA (the second incarnation of the Bugatti firm) went bankrupt in 1995. Basically the EB110 was the right car at the wrong time. It was hugely sophisticated and advanced for its time, a real technological marvel. However in the early nineties there was a widespread economic recession which meant people weren't really interested in uber-expensive luxury supercars, hence the tragic sales flops of the EB110, XJ220 and McLaren F1 et al. The EB110 was Bugatti's only car at the time and they were busy ploughing shedloads of money into developing other concepts and buying out Lotus which didn't really help their plight.

The EB110 was a great car but was a victim of unfortunate circumstances and bad management by the Bugatti management. :rolleyes:
Amazingly for such a low-production record, the EB110 manages resale values of $200,000-$250,000 from its $480,000 price tag just over a decade ago.

[Coventrysucks]

SRS stands for Supplemental Restraint System. SRS is on airbags and seatbelts. There designed to work together and supplement each other.

I don't think you quite understand what "supplemental" means.

You cannot have two things being supplemental to one another.

You can only have one thing supplemental to something else.

In this case the airbags are supplemental to seatbelts - they are there "in addition to".


Bugatti is only a name, VW is the business.

That is not true.

All of the VAG brands (and this goes for all the motor groups) are distinct, seperate companies.

They are all ultimately owned by VAG, and VAG dictates what cars will be built, and provides financial backing, but if you worked at Bugatti, you would be employed with Bugatti, not VW, if you worked at Lamborghini you would be employed with Lamborghini, not VW, if you signed a contract to supply Bentley with alloy wheels, the contract would be with Bentley, not VW.

"Bentley Motors Limited ("we", "us") is a company registered in England and Wales (Company Registration Number 0992897 (http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/2f91c6b15520906326be519445c3e2d5/compdetails)). "

[P4g4nite]

That is not true.
In the future it is possible that VAG will order other cars to be produced wearing the Bugati badge and these may be expected to post profits.
The Veyron was an engineering exercise and no airbag legislation will be the end of Bugatti, Bugatti id not expected to be posting profits at this point in time until maybe never.

[MrKipling]

Bugatti id not expected to be posting profits at this point in time until maybe never.

Yeah, but there's a difference between not posting profits and pissing £100m down the drain!

[P4g4nite]

Yeah, but there's a difference between not posting profits and pissing £100m down the drain!
The Bugatti badge seems to have been resurrected to decorate the finished product of an engineering exercise to build the car that the Veyron became.
To minimise loses from the project VAG could have sold 0 cars as each represented a significant loss.

Why they chose to build more than zero I'm not entirely sure, perhaps they'd like to squeeze into overstuffed hyper-luxo market sometime in the future and the Veyron was an excitment generator.

Maybe ..who knows? It was probably cheaper than a season in F1..

[Nazmacher]

So the Veyron is in the news again for another safety issue. Bugatti, have made an almost impossible dream a reality. Kudos to them. But they sure could have accomplished this with panache. Thats the problem when you declare statistics before you have the means/technology to produce them.

But I'm sure they'll find away around this. Gordon Murray said 'We only had one engineering clash. At Bugatti they had 600'..... errr 601!!

[MrKipling]

It was probably cheaper than a season in F1..

Very good point.

[LandQuail]

To minimise loses from the project VAG could have sold 0 cars as each represented a significant loss.

Why they chose to build more than zero I'm not entirely sure.


I believe that the Veyron is a rolling testbed for the next-generation Phaeton, which will be eighteen feet long, according to this press release from VAG:

Volkswagen Auto Group announced today that a new luxury automobile, tentatively named "Phaeton 2 - Judgement Day," will feature a quad-turbo V-16 producing over 3,000 horsepower and look "for all the world like a 1999 Passat," according to a mysterious hooded figure known only as "The Doctor."

"This will continue to be Volkswagen Auto Group's expression of discrete luxury," The Doctor said. "From the outside, the only indication that there's more to Phaeton 2 than meets the eye will be the hints of blue flame jetting from the cleverly incorporated side-exit exhausts."

The Phaeton 2 - Judgement Day is currently being tested at the Nardo high-speed bowl in Italy, where VAG hopes the car will be powerful enough to "kill the test driver and write off the only prototype," according to a source close to the story.

[P4g4nite]

Volkswagen Auto Group announced today that a new luxury automobile, tentatively named "Phaeton 2 - Judgement Day," will feature a quad-turbo V-16 producing over 3,000 horsepower and look "for all the world like a 1999 Passat," according to a mysterious hooded figure known only as "The Doctor."
The then mid-spec Veyron motor will be powering the 2009 Golf GTi according to project manager, Hans "Sure channeling 1000bhp through the front tyres of a hatchback may initially sound challenging but it really makes sense when you consider how German automotive engineering is really one big pissing contest, besides we will be enlarging the front tyres to 235s with a LSD as optional".

[MrKipling]

Heh heh heh heh.