Why My Car Is Like A Bugatti Veyron

 

See the similarities?  Actually that isn't my car, it's one the same that I found after doing a quick Google Images search.

 

So what could these two cars possibly have in common?

 

Well, they both cost their manufacturers two-and-a-half billion Australian dollars.

 

And if you're wondering why I'm quoting that figure in Australian dollars, it is because the information is sourced from this story in Caradvice.com.au.

 

It lists Europe’s Top 10 Loss-making Vehicles thus:

 

Model                       Years               Estimated Total Loss
Smart Fortwo         1997-2006           $5.0billion

Fiat Stilo                2001-2009           $3.0b

VW Phaeton          2001-2012           $2.9b

Peugeot 1007         2004-2009           $2.8b

Mercedes A-Class 1997-2004           $2.5b

Bugatti Veyron      2005-2013           $2.5b

Jaguar X-Type       2001-2009           $2.5b

Renault Laguna      2006-2012           $2.2b

Audi A2                  2000-2005          $1.9b

Renault Vel Satis    2001-2009          $1.7b

The list is, perhaps surprisingly, topped by the Smart car.  There are a few other quirky cars in there too, the Peugeot 1007 with its sliding doors that nobody wanted and the tiny aluminium A2 that was expensive to build.

There was also the original Merc A-Class seen here failing the Elk Test - maybe it wouldn't have been on the list if it wasn't for that embarrassment so early in its life.

I always liked the Vel-Satis but not many people were tempted to pay big money for a strange-looking luxury Renault so it was doomed from the start.

I am quite surprised that it had an 8-year lifespan.

The article also breaks down how much each manufacturer lost per example of these cars sold:

Model                     Years                    Estimated Loss Per Vehicle (rounded up/down)
Bugatti Veyron      2005-2013                $6,700,500

VW Phaeton          2001-2012                     $40,800

Renault Vel Satis   2001-2009                     $27,200

Peugeot 1007         2004-2009                     $22,300

Audi A2                 2000-2005                     $11,000

Jaguar X-Type       2001-2009                        $6800

Smart Fortwo         1997-2006                        $6500

Renault Laguna      2006-2012                        $5150

Fiat Stilo                 2001-2009                        $4000

Mercedes A-Class   1997-2004                       $2100

The Peugeot figure is quite shocking because $22300 = £12875 (€15400,US$20800) at current exchange rates which can't be too different from its selling price.

$6800 works out as £3925 (€4700,US$6350) so maybe I got a bargain when I bought my car.

Probably not as much of a bargain as Tata got when they bought Jaguar/Land Rover off Ford though.

Lashed

It looks like the stick people stickers I posted about on Tuesday are quite prevalent and embarassing Stateside.  American Insurance site, carinsurance.com, have produced this article on embarassing cars, car colours and accessories.  Sorry, as they are American, that should read "colors".

Unfortunately, they chose the top 12 cars for their survey rather than just opening it up to the public and this is the list after the votes were counted:

1. Smart Fortwo (7.6)
2. Nissan Cube (3.6)
3. Hummer H2 (3.5)
4. Chevrolet SSR (2.1)
5. Volkswagen New Beetle (1.9)
6. Subaru Baja (1.6)
7. Lincoln Town Car (1.6)
8. Pontiac Aztek (1.4)
9. Chrysler PT Cruiser (1.0)
10. Honda Element (0.9)
11. Chevrolet HHR (0.7)
12. Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet (0.3)

The numbers in brackets are the cars "Cringe scores" so I really don't think the bottom three should be in the list at all. The Smart scored badly, rather unfairly, due to a preception that it is "not safe".  At least the reason for the Lincoln Town Car & Chrysler PT Cruiser was they are "too Grandpa" - "ha ha!" says the Jaguar driver.

 

The Americans should be lucky they never had the Fiat Multipla or the car I was once subjected to, the Mercedes Vaneo.

 

The accessories list is much more cut-and-dried:

 

Headlight eyelashes	34%
Bumper sticker for a candidate who lost	18%
Fast and Furious-style spoilers and wings	15%
‘My child is an honor student’ bumper sticker	13%
Stick-figure family decals	13%

 

I really hate the headlight eye-lashes.

Why?

 

 

Fox News also had the story.  Apart from getting the accessories in the wrong order, they also express surpise at no mention of "truck nuts" - something I was aware of and hate nearly as much as the lashes and also no mention of unicorn antenna balls - something I wasn't aware of and was pleased not to be aware of.  Check this out for a cringe.

 

 

Again, why?

 

Doncaster Rovers

...and other cars badly parked appear a lot in this Facebook site.  The Mail pointed me at it.

For those of you who don't know where Doncaster is, it's about 15 miles from Pontefract.

For those of you who haven't joined the Facebook revolution yet, here are the sort of pictures that appear:

...or a  not very smartly parked
Smart car.










I'm a little uneasy about pictures of Police Cars though - whoever parked this may be extremely lazy & selfish - or they may be on serious police business - or, in these modern day times maybe even disabled?

As ever, The Mail want to put their slant on things.  They start by asking "Are these Britain's worst drivers?"

No, although they may score badly as Britain's worst parkers.

They then have the following list:

• Facebook page shames dreadful parking in Doncaster
• It invites users to send in pictures of shoddily-placed cars
• Irate drivers often go on site to defend their parking
• Site also has a serious message about the dangers of blocked pavements

to which I say:

• True
• Yes, also true
• Not that I noticed
• Definitely not that I noticed

The Facebook page (entitled "Parking Like A Twat In Doncaster") has about 8500 likes including one from Metro's Car Blog - not bad considering it was only started this April.  It shouldn't be confused with, "Spotted :Parking Like a Twat" which seems to do the same job but more nationally and with added car crashes which is not the point of the exercise.  That site has over 55000 likes and only started last month.  Impressive but I think I'll stick with the original and best.  It does give you the option of having your badly-parked car removed from the site though - which Doncaster's doesn't seem to do.

Parking on the pavement seems to the current issue where I live where we have been treated to this story with this picture:

It comes with the caption, "Cllr Harry Smith ‘ticketing’ a car which is obstructing the pavement, forcing a young mum to push her buggy and child into the road."  Don't know the significance of it being a "young" mum - maybe older mothers have narrower pushchairs.  Cllr Harry Smith is clearly not a Tory councillor or he would be stood pointing at the gap between the car and the wall - or maybe the front of the car and the kerb.

 

Instead, he is placing a leaflet on the car that is designed to look like a parking ticket.

 

It was very fortunate for his argument that a badly-parked car was at the same place as a young mum and a photographer while he had some of those leaflets with him - and I bet the owner of that Mitsubishi is glad this didn't happen in Doncaster - he'd have looked a right twat.

Deer, Oh Dear!

This is a couple of stories from America.

I'll get the "Oh Dear!" bit over with first because that is the saddest bit.

This is a corruption of a Smart Car on display at the The L.A.Auto Show.

It is called the Smart forjeremy. The story is in Car+Driver here.

Unfortunately, the Jeremy it is for is not Jeremy Clarkson - I would truly love to see his take on a Smart. No, this Jeremy is Jeremy Scott - a fashion designer I have never heard of who has designed fashion for people I have heard of - like Katy Perry and Lady Gaga. Apparently, those things at the back that make it look like an Indian Chief's head-dress are supposed to be wings.

They light up.

Oh yes, and the car is electric-powered.

Anyhoo. The better story from The States today is from Fox and is about this device - no, it's not a see-through i-Phone, it's a deer deterrent called "The Deer Deter". So why would you want to deter a deer - they're quite cute aren't they?

Indeed they are, but if you were a highway with fast moving traffic going along you, you wouldn't want these cute creatures getting splattered and generally causing accidents by wandering onto your tarmac when there's a car coming now would you?

Of course you wouldn't. So you put these up along the roadside and when they are activated by a passing vehicle's headlights, they emit a noise and strobe effect that stops the deer in its tracks until the vehicle has passed.

Oh yes, and the Deer Deter is electric-powered. Solar in fact. The noise is harmless and also means it will alert blind deer.

What do you call a deer with no eyes?


NO IDEA!

Not Very Smart

This story made me laugh when I read it in my local free-paper, The Wirral Globe.






It follows on from my 2010 post about the spy-cars that Wirral Borough Council are using to bring in revenue/stop illegal and dangerous parking*

*delete as applicable

My opinion of parking enforcement operatives isn't that high - despite eco-friendly ones getting in the papers. The guy in charge of this car managed to open his door as a bus was coming along with the result as seen in these pictures.

The Council were keen to play down the incident - a spokesperson said: "A CCTV vehicle operated by NSL was involved in a minor road traffic collision with a bus whilst carrying out parking enforcement activity on behalf of Wirral Council. Nobody was injured, although both vehicles were damaged and were taken off the road for repair.

A replacement CCTV vehicle has been deployed by NSL so there will be no gap in the provision of parking enforcement services."

The Council are obviously more concerned that they are still getting in revenue rather than looking at what caused this.

Surely, either the Spy-car was parked dangerously or the bus driver was driving too close to parked vehicles. In either case, the Spy-car driver should have looked in his mirror before opening the door - buses are quite big.

The article keeps referring to the Spy-car as a Smart. It is true that the first Spy-cars in use here were Smarts (I refer you back to my 2010 article) but this is a Toyota iQ (or possibly an Aston Martin Cygnet - but if it is a Cygnet then the Council have too much money and I want a refund of my Council Tax)

It doesn't make a lot of difference if it is a Smart or an iQ apart from the fact that I should rename this post to mention traffic wardens not having much in the way of IQ.

Who Are You Looking At?

This story is nothing too new. We've had one of these spy cars on The Wirral since last Summer. People have been complaining about it on many counts including it being used to look into bedroom windows and parking illegally to take its photos. The whole legality of the fines were brought into question recently when a local couple had their fine overturned because there were no warning signs stating that their car could be photographed. What shocks me most though, is the cost of the car - I mean just look at it...
£70000 for that!? Allowing £10000 for the Smart (I got that figure from my Top Gear magazine - the Smart website was useless for that info) that leaves £60000 for a length of drainpipe and a Kodak Instamatic - somebody somewhere - probably us Wirral Council Taxpayers - is being ripped off.