This car is the third iteration of a concept car that has been around since 2009, this iteration since 2011. Is there some other significance that I am missing that puts it in the news today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car

That's not true. I choose to believe what a scientist or a doctor tells me. The choice is important, as history teaches. It means more rigour in science, healthy skepticism and less people burning on stakes.

Actually it does. There's a vastly different co-efficient of friction between the road and a semi vs. a car. Tyre compounds, center of mass and probably the most significant difference being how well the suspension keeps the tyres in contact with the road. The heavier the "unsprung mass" (all the components between the dampers/springs and the road) the more intertia and the less quickly the suspension will keep the tyres in contact. Trucks have very heavy suspension in comparison to a car, making them worse at stopping.

I beg to differ, rotary engines are easily the best design of the non reciprocating pistons and I don't think you're being fair to them.

Even if it was altogether true that they needed rebuilds that often it's still better than otto engines were doing at the same period in their development. Ditto for the fuel efficiency. While it is true that the higher output turbo engines can need rebuilds that often, I've heard of the naturally aspirated engines regularly running to 200-300k miles without a rebuild - and these motors still make around 100bhp/litre so they're reasonably stressed engines.

You forgot about the chronic amounts of smug it puts out.

Also unless you're my grandmother I think you mean 45mpg highway.

I take offence to this. There are plenty of cars both in Europe and the States (and beyond) that are low powered by anyone's definition. The choice is there, and a reasonable statement is that a lower powered car will be cheaper. People can choose these cars if they wish. However, if they don't why does this amount to gross denial - and who are you to dictate someone's requirements to them? It's a perfectly valid argument that a more powerful car makes certain situations safer - this doesn't amount as you say to someone arguing that they can't drive on the freeway.

Also a Euro is a unit of currency, when you call me one it conjures an image of a die-hard republican spouting about commies - except the polar opposite. Although no less ignorant.

A certain amount of negative camber is actually beneficial in the situation you describe. As you hit the brakes, the front of the car squats, which compresses the suspension which changes it's geometry. Generally under compression, this geometry change results in positive camber, or the tyres tops pointing outwards. If the tyres were cambered negatively beforehand, under squat the tyres approach a parallel state with the road below (assuming it's level).

Designing suspension geometry is an exercise in compromise. The question here is do you want your tyres parallel with the road under compression or not. Since under compression you're generally in a situation where you're testing the tyre's grip, it seems to me that a degree or 2 of negative camber is actually ideal.

Just for the record there's a case for dinosaurs in the bible. Read the end of Job where he talks about the Behemoth and the Leviathan, or note the numerous mentions of "dragons"/taninim.

Your Sunday school teacher might have been full of crap, don't be fooled by the myopic views of others.

What about something less mainstream? I heard there was some dude called John Delorean who had a brief foray into building sports cars in Ireland during the 80's - surely something this obscure would fit the bill?

How exactly do you know one end of a football from another?

Also, unless the car is turned off the voltage regulators on car alternators mean you're getting closer to 14v

How do you figure? 1m vs 45nm, 40 MIPS vs 3300 and vastly different instruction sets?